Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #91
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest        Tuesday, April 7 1998        Volume 03 : Number 091

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 00:01:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 559 (JT)

> Well I'd hardly describe it as a win attempt. I just thought I may as well
> give it a go. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, sort of thing. Perhaps a more
> pertinent example would be Malenkai's recent attempted swingpoint win which
> the supreme court recently returned a verdict on. I can't remember the number
> though.

Hmmm.  I seem to have omitted a penalty for frivolous Cycle-Win CFJs.
The Chartreuse Goose seems too cliche, though.  Anyone have any better
ideas?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Song--Melissa Etheridge:2001
Current Book--Sean Stewart:The Night Watch
"CAUTION: Knife is very sharp. Keep out of children"

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 00:01:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Salaries

The following salaries were paid at at noon today(or noon yesterday if
it's Tuesday):

+35 A$ Alfvaen: salary - speaker 35
+25 A$ breadbox: salary - promoter 25
+25 A$ Slakko: salary - web-harfer 25
+25 A$ breadbox: salary - tabulator 25
+25 A$ Alfvaen: salary - registrar 25
+25 A$ Alfvaen: salary - scorekeeper 25
+25 A$ Alfvaen: salary - financier 25
+25 A$ The Gingham Wearer: salary - clerk of the court 25
+25 A$ The Gingham Wearer: salary - CSRR 25
+25 A$ breadbox: salary - postmaster 25
+25 A$ Slakko: salary - map-harfer 25
+25 A$ Alfvaen: salary - undead-harfer 25
+25 A$ rufus: salary - trinket-harfer 25
+1 autosculp K 2: salary - treasure-harfer
+25 A$ Slakko: salary - chess-umpire 25
+25 A$ breadbox: salary - rule-harfer 25
- -18 A$ else...if: goose feed

+25 A$ nobody: salary - count tabula 25

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Song--Phil Collins:Take Me Home
Current Book--Sean Stewart:The Night Watch
Due to budget cuts, all clouds will be lined with zinc.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 03:16:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Black Heresy

On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, David Scheidt wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:
> 
> > Black is a color.  Contradiction of this fact is Black Heresy.  Witchhunts
> > may be called against those who have publicly questioned this fact, using
> > the same methods and results as described in Rule 1307, except that the
> 
> Meaning that the votes in the hearing are BURN THE WITCH! and No, e said
> the earth is flat...
> 
> 
> rufus
> 
> 

In accordance with Rule 2802, I am calling a Witchhunt on rufus for the
message quoted above. He is obviously questioning the fact that
contradicting the fact that black is a color is Black Heresy!  He should
be burned, and he will be burned!

The valid responses to this Hearing are:

No!  E said the Earth is flat

BURN THE WITCH!

Please note that the first response is obviously not true of the soon to
be bar-b-qued rufus!

Reply to this message to vote, this hearing lasts 3 days.

Witchfinder General Vynd

[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 03:48:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Salaries

> +1 autosculp K 2: salary - treasure-harfer

Alright......

> +25 A$ nobody: salary - count tabula 25

Awwww.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 03:48:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Count Tabula Office

I can't decide if its the _job_ I want, or the cheese scented fragrance
that comes with it, or maybe both :)

> If both of you still want the job, then I would ask the two of you to
> decide between yourselves who should get it.

> Perhaps you can jello-wrestle for it or something.

Alright, I create a trinket worth A$ 1 (sorry but I have other plans for
my Acka and it is running low), called : Jello Wrestling for Fun and
Profit.Its a book coated in Murrey coloured slime of unknowable origin.
The pages are wedged firmly shut, making one wonder if it contains the
secrets to safely manipulating the stock market. The cover depicts two
entities in a pool of gelatinous Murrey. On the back cover the author
states mysteriously "I like aeroplane jelly."

I gift Jello Wrestling for Fun and Profit to The Gingham Wearer and remove
myself from consideration for the office of Count Tabula.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 03:49:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RBHR

I remind Count Tabula that there is a potential public health emergency
pending :)

> > I am responding publicly to the hearings not-yet-inprogress against the
> > former player Red Barn:
> > No, it was not polite.
> > Yes, why just yesterday e posted a letter to eir aunt!
> > BURN THE WITCH!
> >
> > And just for good measure:
> > The President is scamming us
> > Phoebe would not say anything so crass
> > Yes, 'is toppy's a copy.
> > Yes! He is Hogging the Harf!
> > this the most inane thing since the 'whatever it is we're auctioning
> > today'
> > his loophole surfer is totally Bogus - now there's one we haven't had in
> > a while :)
> > It was obviously in violation!
> > the Ancients weren't that clueless
> > and of course NO.
>
> I am calling a Public Health Emergency against K 2 for the above message.
>
> Count Tabula, please do it to it.
>
> -Hubert
>
> I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 03:49:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Phoebe

> > Is the earth Truly flat?

> > To which Phoebe replied "To answer your questions in random order :Yes,
> > Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, No, No, No, No, No."
>
> I hate to do this to myself, but I am challenging the authenticity of
> this message. The Earth is hemispherical, and Phoebe knows this. It's
> not as if she wasn't around when the Vulcan's rejoined the southern
> hemisphere.
>
> breadbox

The questions were answered randomly, making it difficult to determine
her
answer. That being the case we can only assume she answered correctly
(why
wouldn't she), unless of course she knows something we don't :)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 03:52:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: T200: Second Prize

- --------------6ADD782E930CEC406A94B79C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Second Prize is worth A$ 73, it looks identical to first prize, only
more expensive.

I am burying Second Prize and my Automatic Sculpture, with the map (or
something very much like it):

The player who causes the most players to become ineligible for T200
(the Hubert treasure) shall find this treasure.

A player is deemed 'responsible' for another player becoming ineligible
when e has a message containing the word hubert quoted by an the
eligible player in a public forum. A player may be responsible for their
own disqualification if they say hubert as part of the unquoted text
[includes Hubert wrote].
One point is gained by each originator of the word hubert in the
disqualifying message.

K 2 is disqualified from finding this treasure.

Scores to date:

Hubert           (Hu)(Go)(Ho)   3
Guy Fawkes       (GF)(Re)(K 2)  3
Alfvaen          (V)(Hu)        2
TGW              (TGW)(**)      2
Rufus            (Ru)(AtP)      2
Vynd             (V)            1
Niccolo Flychuck (NF)           1
Sunflare         (Su)           1
Slakko           (Sl)           1
breadbox         (b)            1
Goldenmean       -
Attila the Pun   -
Red Barn         -
two-star         -
K 2              -
Hoover 2300      -

- --------------6ADD782E930CEC406A94B79C
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>
<TT>Second Prize is worth A$ 73, it looks identical to first prize, only
more expensive.</TT>

<P><TT>I am burying Second Prize and my Automatic Sculpture, with the map
(or something very much like it):</TT>

<P><TT>The player who causes the most players to become ineligible for
T200 (the Hubert treasure) shall find this treasure.</TT>

<P><TT>A player is deemed 'responsible' for another player becoming ineligible
when e has a message containing the word hubert quoted by an the eligible
player in a public forum. A player may be responsible for their own disqualification
if they say hubert as part of the unquoted text [includes Hubert wrote].</TT>
<BR><TT>One point is gained by each originator of the word hubert in the
disqualifying message.</TT>

<P><TT>K 2 is disqualified from finding this treasure.</TT>

<P><TT>Scores to date:</TT>

<P><TT>Hubert&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
(Hu)(Go)(Ho)&nbsp;&nbsp; 3</TT>
<BR><TT>Guy Fawkes&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (GF)(Re)(K 2)&nbsp;
3</TT>
<BR><TT>Alfvaen&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (V)(Hu)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
2</TT>
<BR><TT>TGW&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
(TGW)(**)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2</TT>
<BR><TT>Rufus&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
(Ru)(AtP)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2</TT>
<BR><TT>Vynd&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
(V)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1</TT>
<BR><TT>Niccolo Flychuck (NF)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
1</TT>
<BR><TT>Sunflare&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (Su)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
1</TT>
<BR><TT>Slakko&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
(Sl)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1</TT>
<BR><TT>breadbox&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
1</TT>
<BR><TT>Goldenmean&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -</TT>
<BR><TT>Attila the Pun&nbsp;&nbsp; -</TT>
<BR><TT>Red Barn&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -</TT>
<BR><TT>two-star&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -</TT>
<BR><TT>K 2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
- -</TT>
<BR><TT>Hoover 2300&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -</TT>
<BR><TT>&nbsp;</TT></HTML>

- --------------6ADD782E930CEC406A94B79C--

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 04:03:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Public Health Emergency

> I am responding publicly to the hearings not-yet-inprogress against the
> former player Red Barn:
> No, it was not polite.
> Yes, why just yesterday e posted a letter to eir aunt!
> BURN THE WITCH!
>
> And just for good measure:
> The President is scamming us
> Phoebe would not say anything so crass
> Yes, 'is toppy's a copy.
> Yes! He is Hogging the Harf!
> this the most inane thing since the 'whatever it is we're auctioning
> today'
> his loophole surfer is totally Bogus - now there's one we haven't had in
> a while :)
> It was obviously in violation!
> the Ancients weren't that clueless
> and of course NO.

A Public Health Emergency has been called against K 2 for the message
quoted above. Respond to this message private within the next three
days to vote. The valid responses are:

Yes, why just yesterday e posted a letter to eir aunt!

and

No, e, uh, meant to do that.

breadbox
sigh

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 04:06:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Black Heresy

Well if e hadn't I would've ;)

> In accordance with Rule 2802, I am calling a Witchhunt on rufus for the
> message quoted above. He is obviously questioning the fact that
> contradicting the fact that black is a color is Black Heresy!  He should
> be burned, and he will be burned!

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 05:03:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 553 (TRUE)

On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, David Scheidt wrote:

> On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, John Bollinger wrote:
> 
> > 
> > provision for it to become one.  Niccolo argued that the permissibility
> > of the state change was implicit in the final state being allowed; I
> > argued that it was not.  (It is thus evident that Niccolois not a
> > physicist.  :-) 
> Or a computer scientist, either.  `

I resent both of these comments. I resent the first one a little less,
because it was accompanied by smiley, and obviously not intended to be
taken seriously. I resent both on the grounds that they attempt to
transfer my challenge of basic acka assumptions to extra-acka disciplines,
one of which I am a disciple of.

Niccolo Flychuck

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 05:16:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 553 (TRUE)

On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, John Bollinger wrote:

> Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
> >I never claimed that they become unowned, or destroyed. I argue that the
> >rule makes them impossible to be owned by a Party, and therefore they are
> >no longer owned.
> 
> I was getting ready to write a response noting what I would call a conflict
> between the first and second sentences above when I got an acute sense of
> deja vu. 
Quite so.
>    I remember a heated argument that revolved around "being" and
> "becoming."  Now it's getting clearer -- it was the debate about the
> original form of the "More than Human" organizational power.  As I recall,
> Niccolo wanted to try to get Pumpkin Patch Nomic to be a member of
> Metamorph (this was back in the days when the Orange Menace was in the
> rules).  He created the "More than Human" organizational power, which might
> have allowed PPN to _be_ a member of metamorph, but which made no special
> provision for it to become one.  Niccolo argued that the permissibility
> of the state change was implicit in the final state being allowed; I
> argued that it was not.  (It is thus evident that Niccolo is not a
> physicist.  :-)  Of course, I'm not either.)

When I wrote on of my previous replies I was looking for that reference,
has the CFJ archive moved recently?

> 
> Aha, here it is -- CFJ 473.  The Court ruled in favor of my position,
> although it did not specifically sanction my reasoning.  It's reasoning
> shows, however, that the Court supported my point that the rules
> were required to provide an applicable means, and that that means was
> required to be exercised in order to effect the specific game state
> change Niccolo desired.
> 
> The present case seems to be the flip side of the coin.  Political parties
> are no longer permitted to own gadgets, but the rules as currently
> constituted provide no pathway for the game state to be changed so as to
> cause the parties to cease owning the relevant gadgets.  Niccolo's
> original argument may be stronger here, or at least more intuitively

I think I mentioned these differences.

You may have noted that I did not appeal this CFJ. I believe the case for
my position is stronger here than in the CFJ 473 case.

However, I will not be appealing this CFJ. It appears to me that
challenging basic assumptions for argument's sake is tolerated  in the
current Ackanomic atmosphere, it may not go well in Court. In my view, the
assumptions expressed in ThinMan's being/becoming side of the argument are
assumptions imported from an intuitive aspect of one's perception of the
world, I don't believe they have a strong enough basis in acka rule to be
as axiomatic as ThinMan believes them to be. As ThinMan himself pointed
out, perhaps it's time to nail down this concept in ackan law - I believe
this is recognition on his part that this concept is not founded strongly
enough in law. While the being/becoming distinction is intuitively obvious
in some of the realities we inhabit, I do not believe it is intuitively
obvious in acka, as very little else is.

Niccolo Flychuck

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 05:37:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 553 (TRUE)

On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:

> When I wrote on of my previous replies I was looking for that reference,
> has the CFJ archive moved recently?

Yes, it has.  The main Acka page has an updated link.  Temporarily they
are held here at dcr24.quns, but it is hoped that they will soon be
available from The Gingham Wearer's GeoCities account (it seems most
appropriate for the CotC to have the CFJ/CFCJ archive).

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Acka - President "Gumball" Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 07:40:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2839

I like this in principle, however, we already have an Office called
Wizard.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Proposal 2839
> Wizards Return
> Calvin N Hobbes (Thierry Joffrain)
> 
> {{Renumber this rule to 2100}}
> 
> The age of Magic has returned. Wizards now battle each other again on
> spiritual planes in titanic struggles. There exists Light Wizards and Dark
> Wizards. However, they have special powers defined as Astral Spells by other
> rules. A Wizard may not be a member of any organization or political party,
> nor hold any offices. Nor can he own any Ackadollars or trinkets, and if
> receiving some, must get rid ofthem within 24 hours. At any time, a wizard
> who does not fulfill these criteria will no longer be a wizard.
> 
> Any player who is eligible to be a Wizard and bangs their heads on the
> bottom of the river during white water rafting, and then spends one month in
> the library, becomes a Wizard at the end of that month if they still meet
> the criteria above.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 07:43:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2840

I can't for this at its present form. Swingers are handled seperately, and
better, IMO, by the Party Hall Rule.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Proposal 2840
> Organization Disbanding
> JT (JT Traub)
> 
> {{[I believe this allows at least VSOs to disband, something which recently
>  came up in a CFJ.  It also allows other organizations to disband, but I
>  suspect that something special might need to be done to handle some
>  various other special cases for Churches or Parties that I might have
>  missed.  If there are, I suspect there will quickly be amendments to this
>  rule to fix any such problems.
> ]}}
> 
> 
> Amend rule 1003 Section 2 as follows
> replace the following CURRENT delimited text
> CURRENT
> The rules may call for the disbandment of an Organization.  When an
> Organization is disbanded, everything owned by the Organization is transferred
> to the Treasury and the Organization is then no more.
> CURRENT
> 
> with the following NEW delimited text
> NEW
> The rules may call for the disbandment of an Organization.
> 
> Unless the rules for a specific type of organization specify another way
> for disbanding, then Disbanding an organization is allowed as a public
> action.
> 
> When an Organization is disbanded, everything owned by the Organization is
> transferred to the Treasury, all members of the Organization are no longer
> considered to be members, any Swingers for that Organization are no longer
> Swingers for that Organization, and the Organization is then no more.
> NEW
> 
> - -=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> 
> Amend rule 1003 Section 3 as follows
> Add the following
>  d. Disband
> to the list of actionsallows for a VSO
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 07:59:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 553 Appeal (Guy Fawkes and /dev/joe)

I guess I probably ought to announce this here with the new Supreme Court
structuring. Alfvaen has appealed CFJ 553. It goes to the Cortex comprising
/dev/joe and Guy Fawkes.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 553 - April 2, 1998
Subject: Crumbling Vulcans
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent April 1, 1998, 23:05)
Judge: The Gingham Wearer (selected April 2, 1998, 16:43)
Judgement: TRUE
Appealed by: Alfvaen
Cortex: /dev/joe and Guy Fawkes
Judgement:

Statement:
The Political Party known as Vulcan owns a Scroll of Crumble.

Initiator's Reasoning:
Rule 1009 states: "A Political Party may own and Trade A$, Trinkets, and
Organizational Powers. Theu[sic] may not own any other type of Entity."

I have no idea whether Rule 500.2 gives this precedence enough to take
place, but it might.  If this is the case, then I believe that any
"other types of Entity" formerly own by Organizations with Big Tents
are now unowned and in the Treasury.  So in that case this CFJ should be
ruled FALSE.

Judge's Reasoning:
First off I'm going to assume that "theu" is an unambiguous mis-spelling
(shudder) of "they". It is the only word simillar to theu that I can think of
that makes sense (gramatical and otherwise).

I don't think that anyone doubts that a scroll of crumble is "another type of
entity", nor do I believe there is any doubt that Vulcan owned one before the
passage of proposal 2789.That would therefore leave us with a situation
whereby it appears that they own one but the rules dictate that they may not
own one. May indicates that it is not allowed rather than it is not possible.
For example, if a child were to ask "Can I go to the park?" then her mother
would be forced to answer yes if she were being 100% honest, presuming the
child was not disabled, knew her way to the park, etc because the girl would
be physically capable of going to the park. However, if the question had been
"May, I go to the park?" then the mother could well have answered no, for
example because it was too late and the girl was not allowed to go to the
park at this time.

The question is, since the rules say it is not allowed does this equate to
the same thing as being impossible? That is, if the rules say that you're not
allowed to do something does it become impossible to do it, since the game is
governed by the rules? Game custom would seem to suggest this, although I am
not entirely happy about it. Rule 255 states:

"The one exception is that a player who has been on vacation less than 2 days
may not take themselves off vacation."

CFCJ 146 determined that in attempting to remove emself from vacation before
three days had passed Karma had comitted the crime that later became known as
attempting the impossible (I find it interesting that in eir reasoning on
CFCJ 146 Malenkai went off on a big tangent that turned out to be largely
irrelevant much as I have done here).

That would therefore suggest that it is impossible for Vulcan to own a scroll
of crumble so I believe I should judge this FALSE. However, that does not
answer the question of what happens to the scroll. Rule 500.2 states:

"Entities may be transferred from one owner to another only through methods
specified by the Rules."

Does this also mean that entities may only go from being owned to unowned as
specified by the rules? It would be a reasonable assumption. If I were to
post a public message saying "I am making the secret lab owned by shell #10
become unowned" then I can't for a minute imagine this suceeding. Since the
rules have not specified any manner in which the scroll of crumble should
have become unowned (to my knowledge) then I don't believe that this is a
viable alternative either. What does that leave us with? The most reasonable
alternative I can think of is that the scroll is destroyed. Let's see what
the rules have to say about that:

"An entity may not be created, destroyed, or manipulated except as specified
by the Rules." (from rule 500).

Again no rule has demanded the destruction of the scroll so this doesn't seem
viable either.

We now have three conflicting rules (or possibly just two, the example from
rule 500.2 could be considered a subset of manipulation of entities from rule
500) one of which must be true (it must either have been transferred
somewhere else (normal definition, not game definition), destroyed, or
remained where it was). None of the rules in question claim to take
precedence over or defer to any of the other rules in question so once again
we must fall back on rule 102:

"If two or more rules other than this one conflict about a particular issue,
and if the rules other than this one (and not restricted to the conflicting
rules) specify a single, coherent, unambiguous method for resolving the
conflict then that method is applied to determine which rule or rules take
precedence with regard to that issue. Otherwise, wherever the rules conflict
on a particular issue, the rule with the lowest number among those rules
which conflict on that issue shall guide play with regard to that issue."

Whether this is considered as two cinflicting rules or three the result is
the same, the scroll is not destroyed, or transferred since both rules in the
five hundreds take precedence over rules in the thousands. Therefore, the bit
from rule 1009 doesn't take effect. That means that Vulcan does own a Scroll
of Crumble, and so I must judge this TRUE.

Alfvaen's Appeal Reasoning:
The Gingham Wearer quotes Rule 500.2's statement:

"Entities may be transferred from one owner to another only through methods
specified by the Rules."

However, an entity goes Somewhere Else(a.k.a. the Treasury)when it is
_unowned_.  Furthermore, Rule 505, "Treasury & AckaDollars", states
that "The Treasury is a named, unownable entity that serves as a storing
house for entities that belong to no Player, except for those entities
for which the rules explicitly state are not in(or considered to be in)
the Treasury."  Interestingly enough, I think it possible that any entity
owned by an Organization is _already_ in the Treasury, because it is
owned by no Player, and I don't see any explicit statement to the
contrary anywhere.  (I don't even know if it was there before.)  So
perhaps Rule 500.2 says that Vulcan's Scroll of Crumble is not Somewhere
Else, Rule 505 says it's in the Treasury, so maybe they're not identical.
There's something that should be cleared up.  Anyway.

I suppose it's possible that ThinMan's argument about the Game State,
which stems from Rule 500, might hold sway.  But darn it, TGW didn't have
me convinced.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 07:59:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 557 (FALSE)

K 2 has judged this FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 557 - April 3, 1998
Subject: Antxina
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent April 3, 1998, 09:03)
Judge: K 2 (selected April 3, 1998, 09:55)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:
Alfvaen owns a unique entity called Antxina.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:
This is a long shot, because a)I would've had to have been able(as Praetor)
to describe how to amend the Rule Beldin's Pants, b)either my first attempt
to describe it succeeded(CFJ 555 covers this one), or c)my attempt to amend
the Rule after my second description succeeded despite my only being Acting
Praetor at the time.  Or something like that.  Frankly, I don't think so
either, but I've been surprised before.

Judge's Reasoning:
Was amendment of Beldin's pants by the Praetor, causing the creation of
Antxina, possible? The answer comes down to how the following paragraph from
rule 940 is interpreted:Beldin's Pants are a Garment, initially Somewhere
Else.
Beldin's Pants may only be amended as described by the Praetor. Beldin's
Pants are unique.

In the first sentence 'Beldin's Pants' are a garment. In the third 'Beldin's
Pants' are unique. Uniqueness does not appear to be a appellation used to
describe any rule rather, it appears to be applied only to entities (MTG*P*,
TCG etc.).

Thus both the first and third sentences confer to Beldin's Pants the status
of
a unique garment entity. Interpreting the second sentence (sandwiched between
the two) as referring to a rule does not seam reasonable. Thus rule 940 does
not grant the Praetor the right to amend it. Alfvaen's attempt to create the
rule defined entity Antxina, by amending rule 940, failed. (rule changes
being
a regulated action)

This CFJ is ruled FALSE.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 07:59:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 555 (TRUE (overturned))

This has been judged TRUE on appeal.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 555 - April 2, 1998
Subject: Beldin's Scam
Initiator: /dev/joe
Judge: Rex Mundi
2nd Judge: Attila the Pun
3rd Judge: Slakko
Judgement: FALSE
Appealed by Slakko
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Alfvaen's attempted amendment of R940 on April 1, 1998 did not
succeed.

Initiator's Reasoning:

Ignoring the issue as to whether the words "Beldin's Pants" refer to
the rule or the garment, the sentence in question does not empower
anybody to amend Beldin's Pants anyway.

The rule states "Beldin's Pants may only be amended as described by
the Praetor." The word "only" in this sentence is very important; it
makes this sentence a *restrictive* one, rather than an *empowering*
one which it would be without the word "only". Since Rule 101
prohibits rule changes in ways other than the rules describe, Alfvaen
may not amend rule 940.

Judge's Reasoning:

There are two separate questions to be answered in determining this
CFJ.  Firstly, to what does the text "Beldin's Pants" in "Beldin's
Pants may only be amended as described by the Praetor" refer, the
Garment or the Rule. Secondly, if it is the Rule being referred to,
then does the text allow Alfvaen to make the amendment?

Prior to the most recent amendment of Rule 940, the text which is now
in question read "Beldin's Pants may only be removed as described by
the Praetor." At this time the customary interpretation was that this
referred to the garment - that interpretation being based on the
previous sentence being "Beldin's Pants are a Garment, initially
Somewhere Else."

The most recent amendment of the rule saw "removed" replaced by
"amended". Can this change of a single word affect the meaning of
other words? To say no to this question would be to contradict game
custom which determines that we interpret the rules so as to get a
"reasonable" interpretation. If a single word change made the old
interpretation of some words unreasonable, then their interpretation
may well change.

There is no objective, direct rule-based method for determining which
Beldin's Pants is being referred to in this rule, so game custom will
prevail. Existing custom dictates that the context in Rule 940, where
the first sentence defines Beldin's Pants to be a garment, and the
second sentence then describes when "Beldin's Pants" can be amended,
indicates that the two instances of "Beldin's Pants" are referring to
the same thing, i.e. the Garment.

Therefore Alfvaen did not have the power to amend R940, and thus the
second question is moot, and my judgement is FALSE.

In addition, consider the actual text of the message sent:
>In this message I describe how Beldin's Pants may be amended, according
>to Rule 940.
>
>Beldin's Pants may be amended by Beldin's Tailor as described by Rule
>939,
>by the reader of the page "The Secret" from the Ackanomicon as described
>by Rule 910, by the Praetor, and by any player who owns a Cheez-Whiz and
>three cheeses.

Game custom tells us what "Beldin's Pants" means when it is in Rule
940.  However, as this CFJ had not been judged, it was not generally
known what "Beldin's Pants" in Rule 940 would have referred to, the
Garment or the Rule. The amount of public discussion on this issue
illustrates this.  Therefore, the first sentence of this message is
ambiguous, as it does not specify _which_ Beldin's Pants is being
amended. Therefore the attempt to amend something fails due to being
insufficiently specified.  This also leads me to a judgement of FALSE.

I judge FALSE.

Appealer's Reasoning:

I am appealing this verdict. I made a mistake, I hope the Cortex will go
easy on me.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

The Court is in full agreement with the arguments put forth by the
original judge, which obviously indicate a verdict of TRUE. Said judge
is penalized one point.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 08:57:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2831

On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > Proposal 2831
> > All We Like Sheep.
> > IdiotBoy (Matt Miller)
> 
> While I appreciate IdiotBoy's sense of humor, I would ask him to
> consider retracting this. This proposal does not add "voting BAA!" to
> the list of voting actions in Rule 313.
> 
> b
> 

I retract Proposal 2831.

IB
bah.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 09:13:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Ian K." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Phoebe's Unbounded Wisdom

In my excitement at having found the renowned Phoebe's matchbox lying
randomly upon my neat, clean, new desk, I whipped it open and Interrogated
The Steel Flea.

"Phoebe? Oh, Phoebe? What should a new player do in this game? How can I
get started? How do I get to play Party chess?"

"There is but one answer to all of your questions - you must join or form 
a Political Party. Let it be a model for other parties to mold emselves
upon - large in size, but not too large - with objectives but not tied
down - and to present a united front but not be boring. Go forth, and let
it be so!"

At this point Phoebe jumps at me and proceeds to act like a real flea and
feel like a real flea. I itch. When Phoebe gets fed up I put em back
in her box and put it somewhere so that I am out of ems reach.

Filled with enthusiasm (and too lazy to found a party) I went forth to
join the Harf party. Only then did I remember that I had to tell you lot
what good advice Phoebe had given me. So.

Koxvolio

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 09:33:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 553 (TRUE)

>> When I wrote on of my previous replies I was looking for that reference,
>> has the CFJ archive moved recently?
> 
> Yes, it has.  The main Acka page has an updated link.  Temporarily
> they are held here at dcr24.quns, but it is hoped that they will
> soon be available from The Gingham Wearer's GeoCities account (it
> seems most appropriate for the CotC to have the CFJ/CFCJ archive).

No, it hasn't. Or at least it shouldn't have.

I am still maintaining the CFJ archives, and I will continue to do so
until my replacement is ready. (I had no idea that the link on the
main Acka page pointed anywhere else.)

breadbox

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 10:02:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Postmasterness

As of this morning I have received bounce messages spanning seven days
for the observer [email-masked], so I am exercising my
privilege as Postmaster and removing them from the lists.

This "observer", by the way, subscribed to all of the lists some time
ago. And I do mean *all* of the lists - including every last digest
list. (Of course the attempts to subscribe to the party lists failed,
since those are private.) Since it was obviously a bot, and worried
that spam mail might ensue, I considered taking action. But in the end
I decided that, with the amount of mail we generate, the problem was
likely to take care of itself. And indeed, unsubscribe commands for
all of the non-digest lists arrived within a couple of weeks. The
digest subscriptions remained, however, and finally started
bouncing. (I imagine that whatever-it-was cancelled that address
entirely. Ackanomic is hardly the most high-volume mailing list on the
internet, after all....)

breadbox

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 10:21:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Phoebe

>> > To which Phoebe replied "To answer your questions in random order :Yes,
>> > Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, No, No, No, No, No."
>>
>> I hate to do this to myself, but I am challenging the authenticity of
>> this message. The Earth is hemispherical, and Phoebe knows this. It's
>> not as if she wasn't around when the Vulcan's rejoined the southern
>> hemisphere.
>>
>> breadbox
>
>The questions were answered randomly, making it difficult to determine
>her
>answer. That being the case we can only assume she answered correctly
>(why
>wouldn't she), unless of course she knows something we don't :)

Ah, but we can _count_ the numbers of each response to determine whether
those are correct.  Judge for yourself.

ThinMan

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 11:28:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 553 (TRUE)

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
[I wrote:]
>> The present case seems to be the flip side of the coin.  Political parties
>> are no longer permitted to own gadgets, but the rules as currently
>> constituted provide no pathway for the game state to be changed so as to
>> cause the parties to cease owning the relevant gadgets.  Niccolo's
>> original argument may be stronger here, or at least more intuitively
>
>I think I mentioned these differences.
>
>You may have noted that I did not appeal this CFJ. I believe the case for
>my position is stronger here than in the CFJ 473 case.
>
>However, I will not be appealing this CFJ. It appears to me that
>challenging basic assumptions for argument's sake is tolerated  in the
>current Ackanomic atmosphere, it may not go well in Court. In my view, the
>assumptions expressed in ThinMan's being/becoming side of the argument are
>assumptions imported from an intuitive aspect of one's perception of the
>world, I don't believe they have a strong enough basis in acka rule to be
>as axiomatic as ThinMan believes them to be. As ThinMan himself pointed
>out, perhaps it's time to nail down this concept in ackan law - I believe
>this is recognition on his part that this concept is not founded strongly
>enough in law. While the being/becoming distinction is intuitively obvious
>in some of the realities we inhabit, I do not believe it is intuitively
>obvious in acka, as very little else is.

I am willing to go a long way with abandoning real-world paradigms for
Acka play, but some are too fundamental.  In particular, Acka has long
recognized English as a principally external language, only slightly
modified for Ackan use.  As the language with which the rules are written,
English is essentially the fundamental law of Ackanomic.  Even this law
can be tweaked, but whole-scale departures from it require rules for
their specification lest all Acka collapse into Babel.  I can imagine
an internal language developing over the years; indeed, it is already
happening, but if Ackaspeak ever becomes more than just a local dialect
of English then it will be in the far future.

I am not willing to abandon the English meanings of the words in which
the rules are written, except where the rules or game custom direct that
I do so.  As an example, I claim now, as I did before, that if I observe
an aspect of the game state to be different now than it was yesterday
then according to the definition of "change," that aspect of the game
state has changed.  This is the language, the fundamental physics of
Ackanomic.  If I am not a member of TMBSG today, but I am one tomorrow,
then by definition I will have become one.

Niccolo and I have had this argument before, and I don't see much point
in having it again, so I will stop there.  Niccolo, if you disagree
with the above then feel free to have at it; I will not respond further.

How the principles I have outlined apply to the CFJ at hand is left as
an exercise for the reader.

ThinMan

------------------------------

End of ackanomic digest V3 #91
******************************