Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #110
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest        Friday, April 17 1998        Volume 03 : Number 110

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 01:24:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Are we that busy?

> > At 12:34 AM 4/16/98 -0400, you wrote:
> > >I'm getting bounced from the Condensed Main Acka Page.  "Too many users"
> > >Is this something that has happened before?  I assume it is actually
> > >Slakko's server, not the Acka page itself, that is this busy :)

> > Maybe I've taken to advertising Acka again -- I once got quite a good
> > number of people to join Acka in a fairly short amount of time, just
> > through strategic advertising.

> > Of course, that wasn't a good thing. Probably why the office of the
> > Publicist ceased to exist.

> That was how I joined!
> Straight into the Quorum Crisis. 
> Niccolo Flychuck

And I think I saw one of the original Publicist messages, forgot about
it for a year or so, and then finally joined...in the middle of another
quorum crisis.  (The one where the Aliens abducted Rule 106.)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--The Kinks:25 Years--The Ultimate Collection
Current Book--Philip Jose Farmer:The Cache
There's safety in numbers, but my number's up.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 01:26:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Are we that busy?

On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> And I think I saw one of the original Publicist messages, forgot about
> it for a year or so, and then finally joined...in the middle of another
> quorum crisis.  (The one where the Aliens abducted Rule 106.)
Whatever happened to those pesky aliens?

rufus

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 01:36:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Ice

The 14 days specified by default for Hoover 2300's vacation have passed,
and e has not returned, so e is now On Ice.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--The Kinks:25 Years--The Ultimate Collection
Current Book--Philip Jose Farmer:The Cache
Just give Alice some pencils and she will stay busy for hours.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 01:41:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Eleusis

I'm going to wait a few more hours(i.e. until morning), and then announce
the beginning of my Eleusis game.  At the moment it consists of Alfvaen,
K 2, Ayla, Attila the Pun, Robert Sevin, and Fortunato, but there might
be another couple of spaces.  I might even let JT in if there's room.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--The Kinks:25 Years--The Ultimate Collection
Current Book--Philip Jose Farmer:The Cache
When the boss is not around we know a lot of songs.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 01:43:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Agendas

Agenda bidding is now over.  With any luck, I should have the results
back by this weekend, and the Cycle might even last that long.  (Well,
odds are it'll wait until Slakko's fix Proposal passes...)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--The Kinks:25 Years--The Ultimate Collection
Current Book--Philip Jose Farmer:The Cache
Even Occam occasionally cut himself shaving.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 03:48:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Good bye

My appologies for this and other messages. It had been languishing in the
unsent folder on another computer, I used that computer and....
oops

Suppose this could be a snowgod disease variant 

K 2

>On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, K2 wrote:
>
>> >I as well.
>> >
>> >(4 points...)
>> 
>> 
>> Also :)
>> 
>> 
>> (5 points... prolly more but i havn't read that far yet )
>> 
>> 
>
>Did I miss something?  Did someone leave?  Why do I keep getting mail out
>of order, or not at all?
>
>                                 - Vynd
>
>[email-masked]
>
>
>
>

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 06:14:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Soundtrack

On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, K2 wrote:

> >(What shape are bannas, anyway?)
> >
> >
> earth shaped

I am calling a Witchhunt against K 2 for this message.  I am Witchfinder
General, reply to burn this heretic.  Valid responses are BURN THE WITCH!
and No! e said the earth was flat.

- -Hubored

Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine. 

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 10:12:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Oops :)

I just noticed when I was reading through old mail that Alfvaen, that
lovable scamp, gifted me with a trinket.  Thanks, Alfvaen :)

- ------------------
Aaron Keesler
Lotus Notes Administrator
Intranet Administrator
Adtran, Inc.
- ------------------

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 10:20:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 570 (Koxvolio)

Koxvolio has been selected.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 570- April 17, 1998
Subject: Scientists
Initiator: Slakko (sent April 17, 1998, 03:48)
Judge: Koxvolio (selected April 17, 1998, 10:17)
Judgement: 

Statement:
/dev/joe was elected Inventor yesterday.

Slakko's Reasoning:
Rule 593 prohibits a player from holding more than one Office in the
Ackanomic Research Guild.  However, it does not say anything about a
player who holds one post being ineligible to stand for election to
another.  It would require that one of the two offices is automatically
vacated (most likely at random) if the player in question is elected, but
does not bar them standing in the first place.

/dev/joe nominated for Inventor - The Gingham Wearer made a note of this
in the message announcing the election.  /dev/joe received more votes than
any other player running for Inventor.  Therefore /dev/joe was elected
Inventor.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 12:08:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 567 (FALSE)

> I am appealing this verdict.  The Judge's reasoning above may fall afoul
> of Section XI. of Rule 594, which states "All Blueprints defer precedence
> to rules which are not Blueprints."  So Rule 940 takes precedence over
> the Pyraic Frobnotzer's Blueprint.

Oops. I forgot to mention that this goes to Guy Fawkes and /dev/joe.

TGW, CotC.

PS, I think I'll do this in the future for appeals, note on the main list
which cortex it goes to but not give out a full report.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 12:08:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 565 (INVALID)

> Nicole Flychuck judged this INVALID.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 565 - April 14, 1998
> Subject: Bodies
> Initiator: rufus (sent April 13, 1998, 18:19)
> Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected April 14, 1998, 09:36)
> Judgement: INVALID
> 
> Statement: 
> Ackans have no bodies. 
> 
> Initiator's Reasoning:  
> The rules seem not to say.  Heads, yes.  Wings, some of us.  Ears, some of
> us.  What these should attach to is not clear.
> 
> Judge's Reasoning:
> I dont see what bearing this has on the Game State. If the rules, in their
> wisdom, had not seen fit to descirbe ackans' bodies, then ackans may well
> have any bodies they wish to have.

I am appealing this judgement with the entirety of the next three paragraphs
as my appeal reasoning.

Rule 211 states:

"CFJ's with no clear statement, or consisting of empty statements or
inherently contradictory statements or multiple statements, in the judgement
of the Judge, shall be judged "Invalid". A statement with multiple sentences
is not necessarily disqualified; it is up to the judgement of the Judge as to
whether such submission is Invalid, as per above. "

This CFJ had a clear statement, only one statement, and wasn't self
contradictory. The question is, "was it an empty statement?". That appears to
be what the judge and yet game custom would seem to argue not. CFJs 543 and
535 were both totally irrelevant and had no bearing on the gamestate, and
neither of them were judged INVALID. I don't believe this should be either.

I am now donning the CotC cap and announcing that this has gone to the cortex
of Guy Fawkes and /dev/joe.

TGW, CotC.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 12:17:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Micah J. Smukler)
Subject: Acka: ear

I am paying A$4 to the Ackanomic Institute of Genetic Replication
to purchase 1 pointy ear.

AtP

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 12:20:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 565 (INVALID)

> I am now donning the CotC cap and announcing that this has gone to the cortex
> of Guy Fawkes and /dev/joe.

Sheesh, how come the ThinMan and breadbox cortex never gets any appeals
anymore? Did they do something to become ineligible that I don't know about?

/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 12:23:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 565 (INVALID)

On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> > I am now donning the CotC cap and announcing that this has gone to the cortex
> > of Guy Fawkes and /dev/joe.
> 
> Sheesh, how come the ThinMan and breadbox cortex never gets any appeals
> anymore? Did they do something to become ineligible that I don't know about?

They already have a few on their plate - you guys keep getting appeals at
least until you have as many sub judice as they do.

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 - ex-President/still Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 12:29:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 565 (INVALID)

> > Sheesh, how come the ThinMan and breadbox cortex never gets any appeals
> > anymore? Did they do something to become ineligible that I don't know
> > about?

> They already have a few on their plate - you guys keep getting appeals at
> least until you have as many sub judice as they do.

Hmm, so you mean Guy and I should stop returning them? :-)

/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 12:53:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: ear

On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Micah J. Smukler wrote:

> I am paying A$4 to the Ackanomic Institute of Genetic Replication
> to purchase 1 pointy ear.

I laugh at Attila the Pun, regardless of his actions.

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 - ex-President/still Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 13:07:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 565 (INVALID)

On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> > Judge's Reasoning:
> > I dont see what bearing this has on the Game State. If the rules, in their
> > wisdom, had not seen fit to descirbe ackans' bodies, then ackans may well
> > have any bodies they wish to have.
> 
> I am appealing this judgement with the entirety of the next three paragraphs
> as my appeal reasoning.
> 
> Rule 211 states:
> 
> "CFJ's with no clear statement, or consisting of empty statements or
> inherently contradictory statements or multiple statements, in the judgement
> of the Judge, shall be judged "Invalid". A statement with multiple sentences
> is not necessarily disqualified; it is up to the judgement of the Judge as to
> whether such submission is Invalid, as per above. "
> 

I believe that Niccolo's point is the only thing which you left out of the
below exposition, i.e. that it contains an "empty statement."  

> This CFJ had a clear statement, only one statement, and wasn't self
> contradictory. The question is, "was it an empty statement?". That appears to
> be what the judge and yet game custom would seem to argue not. CFJs 543 and
> 535 were both totally irrelevant and had no bearing on the gamestate, and
> neither of them were judged INVALID. I don't believe this should be either.

Of course, you may be right.

IB

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 13:22:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 565 (INVALID)

> > "CFJ's with no clear statement, or consisting of empty statements or
> > inherently contradictory statements or multiple statements, in the
judgement
> > of the Judge, shall be judged "Invalid". A statement with multiple
sentences
> > is not necessarily disqualified; it is up to the judgement of the Judge
as to
> > whether such submission is Invalid, as per above. "
> > 
> 
> I believe that Niccolo's point is the only thing which you left out of the
> below exposition, i.e. that it contains an "empty statement."  
> 
> > This CFJ had a clear statement, only one statement, and wasn't self
> > contradictory. The question is, "was it an empty statement?". That
appears to
> > be what the judge and yet game custom would seem to argue not. CFJs 543
and
> > 535 were both totally irrelevant and had no bearing on the gamestate, and
> > neither of them were judged INVALID. I don't believe this should be
either.
> 
> Of course, you may be right.

Erm...did you actually read my reasoning? I said that the other bits were
trivial and then said that whether or not it was an "empty statement" was the
big question and then tried to prove that it wasn't.

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 13:25:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 565 (INVALID)

On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> Erm...did you actually read my reasoning? I said that the other bits were
> trivial and then said that whether or not it was an "empty statement" was the
> big question and then tried to prove that it wasn't.
> 
> TGW.
> 

SkimmingBoy turns up the big loser.  Sorry.

IB
cutting off his own mailing privledges for 15 minutes

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:13:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Micah J. Smukler)
Subject: Acka: House

I am renaming my house "'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves/Did gyre
and gimble in the wabe/All mimsy were the borogoves,/And the mome raths
outgrabe./'Beware the Jabberwock, my son!/The jaws that bite, the claws
that catch!/Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun/The frumious Bandersnatch!'/
He took his vorpal sword in hand/Long time the manxome foe he sought --/
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,/And stood awhile in thought./And, as in
uffish thought he stood,/The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,/Came whiffling
through the tulgey wood,/And burbled as it came!/One, two! One, two! And
through and through/The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!/He left it dead,
and with its head/He went galumphing back./'And, has thou slain the
Jabberwock?/Come to my arms, my beamish boy!/O frabjous day! Callooh!
Callay!'/He chortled in his joy./'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves/Did
gyre and gimble in the wabe/All mimsy were the borogoves,/And the mome
raths outgrabe."

Why?

Why not?

AtP

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:16:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 565 (FALSE (overturned))

In possibly the fastest ever verdict from the supreme court (it was under 2
hours from my appeal to when I received the verdict) this has been overturned
to FALSE. ThinMan and breadbox had best get a move on if they ever want to
see another CFJ again.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 565 - April 14, 1998
Subject: Bodies
Initiator: rufus (sent April 13, 1998, 18:19)
Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected April 14, 1998, 09:36)
Judgement: INVALID
Appealed by: The Gingham Wearer
Judgement: FALSE

Statement: 
Ackans have no bodies. 

Initiator's Reasoning:  
The rules seem not to say.  Heads, yes.  Wings, some of us.  Ears, some of
us.  What these should attach to is not clear.

Judge's Reasoning:
I dont see what bearing this has on the Game State. If the rules, in their
wisdom, had not seen fit to descirbe ackans' bodies, then ackans may well
have any bodies they wish to have.

Appealer's Reasoning:
Rule 211 states:

"CFJ's with no clear statement, or consisting of empty statements or
inherently contradictory statements or multiple statements, in the judgement
of the Judge, shall be judged "Invalid". A statement with multiple sentences
is not necessarily disqualified; it is up to the judgement of the Judge as to
whether such submission is Invalid, as per above. "

This CFJ had a clear statement, only one statement, and wasn't self
contradictory. The question is, "was it an empty statement?". That appears to
be what the judge and yet game custom would seem to argue not. CFJs 543 and
535 were both totally irrelevant and had no bearing on the gamestate, and
neither of them were judged INVALID. I don't believe this should be either.

Supreme Court's Comments:
We, the Cortex Tweedledee and Tweedledum, can find no reason in the Rules
for this CFJ to be INVALID.  We concur with the Appealer, that this CFJ
consists of a single clear statement.  If this CFJ is INVALID, then, it is
because it consists of an empty statement.

The original Judge claims the statement is empty because it is utterly
unrelated to the Rules or the Game State.  Whether or not this causes a
statement to be empty may be a matter of some debate -- though in the past
CFJ's utterly unrelated to the Rules or Game State have been submitted and
received non-Invalid verdicts.  In this specific case, however, it is not
necessary whether this is a criterion for emptiness, because the Rules
have seen fit to state that Ackans do indeed have bodies.

The Ackanomicon pages "Not so Forbidden Fruit" causes the player who reads
it to have "an out of body experience in which he is transported to an
primordial jungle where he is worshiped as a god by the natives."  Since
Ackans are capable of having an out-of-body experience, this Rule strongly
implies that they must have a body to have an experience out of.

Even more convincing is the description of the Ackanomicon page
"Mutation," which "warps the reader's mind and body."  Clearly, the reader
(an Ackan) must have a body to be warped for this to work.

As such, this CFJ consists of a single, clear statement which can be
answered FALSE by the straightforward application of the Rules.
In this, there is no grounds for invalidity.

Penalty to Original Judge: 5 points for not following the rules relevant
to invalid verdicts.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:17:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: House

> I am renaming my house "'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves/Did gyre
> and gimble in the wabe/All mimsy were the borogoves,/And the mome raths
> outgrabe./'Beware the Jabberwock, my son!/The jaws that bite, the claws
> that catch!/Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun/The frumious Bandersnatch!'/
> He took his vorpal sword in hand/Long time the manxome foe he sought --/
> So rested he by the Tumtum tree,/And stood awhile in thought./And, as in
> uffish thought he stood,/The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,/Came whiffling
> through the tulgey wood,/And burbled as it came!/One, two! One, two! And
> through and through/The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!/He left it dead,
> and with its head/He went galumphing back./'And, has thou slain the
> Jabberwock?/Come to my arms, my beamish boy!/O frabjous day! Callooh!
> Callay!'/He chortled in his joy./'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves/Did
> gyre and gimble in the wabe/All mimsy were the borogoves,/And the mome
> raths outgrabe."
> 
> Why?
> 
> Why not?

Why do I get a feeling that Slakko might be abbreviating this on the map?

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:20:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 553 (TRUE (upheld))

This has been upheld on appeal by the cortex of Guy Fawkes and /dev/joe

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: TRUE

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.

Supreme Court's Comments:
The appealer seems to be confused about the properties of the Treasury and
Somewhere Else, particularly in the fact that they are not the same thing.

First, Rule 505 defines the Treasury as follows: 
> 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. Items owned by the Treasury are said to be "in the Treasury",
> and they may not be manipulated in any way except as explicitly allowed
> by the Rules. 

It is clear here that the Treasury _owns_ items.

Somewhere Else is defined by Rule 835:
> 8a) Somewhere Else is an unownable and unmappable Location. Entities may
> not be transferred to and/or from Somewhere Else except whereas such
> transfers are explicitly permitted by the Rules. No player may ever be
> Somewhere Else.  

Also, Rule 500.2 has this to say about Somewhere Else:
> At any given time, each ownable entity is either owned by one or more
> named entities or Somewhere Else (unowned). If the Rule(s) defining an
> ownable entity do not explicitly state that it may have multiple owners,
> then it can have at most one owner.

It is clear here, that those entities that are Somewhere Else have no
owner (including the Treasury), and are therefore NOT in the Treasury

>From Rule 500.2, we learn that unless the Rules explicitly state that a
Scroll of Crumble can have multiple owners (which they do not), it can
have only one, and if it does not have one, it is Somewhere Else.  Then,
before Rule 1009 entered its current state, the Scroll of Crumble in
question had only one owner, and I think there is little question that
that owner was Vulcan.  After the passage of Rule 1009, the Scroll must
continue to have no more than one owner, or to be unowned.  That is, the
Scroll must either be owned by Vulcan, owned by an entity other than
Vulcan, or be Somewhere else.

Rule 1009 forbids Vulcan to own the Scroll.  However, Rule 500.2 forbids
the scroll to go from one owner to another except through means described
by the Rules, and Rule 835 forbids the transfer of an entity to Somewhere
Else except as explicitly permitted by the Rules.  Both the Rules which
deny the means for the Scroll to leave Vulcan ownership have greater
precedence that Rule 1009, and so the Cortex Tweedledee and Tweedledum
must uphold the original verdict -- Vulcan continues to own the Scroll.

While maintaining a Game State that violates the Rules is somewhat
disconcerting, it is not unprecedented.  The curious are invited to study
the events surrounding CFJ's 191 and 200, in which Malenkai was forced by
the Rules to be Speaker when he was already Justice, a circumstance that
violated the Rules.  The Court decided that until the double occupancy was
resolved, that Malenkai was simply holding both offices in violation of
the Rules.

It appears in this situation that even in cases where it would be
impossible for a player to perform an action that would result in a
Rule-violating game state, it is possible that inactions or changes to the
Rules might produce such a state.  Consider Iconoclasm.  It is
impermissible to commit this Crime, just as it would be impermissible for
Vulcan to start owning a Scroll of Crumble.  It is entirely possible for
Iconoclasm to be committed passively, as Vulcan has passively allowed
their entity owership to violate the Rules.

Penalty to Appealer: 15 points

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:26:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: House

On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Micah J. Smukler wrote:

> I am renaming my house "'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves/Did gyre
etc.

> Why not?

Because you've just completely stuffed the map.  Try fitting that into
60x60 pixels :-(

Yours,
Slakko
annoyed Map-Harfer
- -- 
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 - ex-President/still Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:28:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Web site changes

The sites I am maintaining as Clerk of the Courts have moved. They can now be
found at:

http://brain.mics.net/~tomwalmsley/acka/CFJinel.html
http://brain.mics.net/~tomwalmsley/acka/CRCFJs.html  
http://brain.mics.net/~tomwalmsley/acka/cfjchart.html   
http://brain.mics.net/~tomwalmsley/acka/zuriti_ili.htm 

The CFJ archives will be moving there shortly (I'll mail Slakko privately as
and when they do so e can update the main web page) but most of them aren't
there yet. The most recent updates though are currently *only* there though
so if you need them then you can get there (to the 2 most recent pages of
CFJs) via 

http://brain.mics.net/~tomwalmsley/acka/CFJindex.htm

Most of the links there will still be broken though, the rest is still up on
geocities and will almost certainly be put up at the new site later tonight.
The portrait gallery (currently in a sorry state, sorry) should be up there
in the next few days too.

TGW, CotC, assistant web harfer.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:37:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 570 (FALSE)

Koxvolio has judged this FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 570- April 17, 1998
Subject: Scientists
Initiator: Slakko (sent April 17, 1998, 03:48)
Judge: Koxvolio (selected April 17, 1998, 10:17)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:
/dev/joe was elected Inventor yesterday.

Slakko's Reasoning:
Rule 593 prohibits a player from holding more than one Office in the
Ackanomic Research Guild.  However, it does not say anything about a
player who holds one post being ineligible to stand for election to
another.  It would require that one of the two offices is automatically
vacated (most likely at random) if the player in question is elected, but
does not bar them standing in the first place.

/dev/joe nominated for Inventor - The Gingham Wearer made a note of this
in the message announcing the election.  /dev/joe received more votes than
any other player running for Inventor.  Therefore /dev/joe was elected
Inventor.

Judge's Reasoning:
The conflict here is that in rule 593 it says that no person can hold more
than one of the Scientist offices. However it does not say that one who
holds such a post is ineligible to stand for another. 

Rule 402 says that if a rule does not state who is eligible to be
nominated, all players are eligble.

However, I judge that since /dev/joe holds the office of wizard (still,
according to the Players and Entities page) he cannot hold the office of
Inventor. I would describe his current position as the 'Inventor-Elect'.

He could not have been elected to the post of Inventor because he cannot
be the Inventor.

Since he is unable to hold the office of Inventor, we do not currently
have an Inventor. We need an Inventor. I would call on TGW to request
nominations for a new election, if /dev/joe does not *very* soon make
himself able take up his post. (i.e. by getting rid of the post of Wizard
by standing down - it reverts to the treasury, I think - or selling it as
a Capital Post).

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:38:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 570 (FALSE)

> Since he is unable to hold the office of Inventor, we do not currently
> have an Inventor. We need an Inventor. I would call on TGW to request
> nominations for a new election, if /dev/joe does not *very* soon make
> himself able take up his post. (i.e. by getting rid of the post of Wizard
> by standing down - it reverts to the treasury, I think - or selling it as
> a Capital Post).

I give the Wizard office to ThinMan.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:48:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 570 (FALSE)

>   I'm appealing this; with the following reasoning:
> 
>  The Judge on this has ruled FALSE, yet by his own argument /dev/joe has
> been elected Inventor; even if he does not actually hold the post.  The
> orignal call _did not_ specify that /dev/joe _was_ Inventor.  

Sigh. This goes once again to /dev/joe and Guy Fawkes. Oh and in the event
that the office of inventor is vacant I am calling another nomination. Reply
to vote.

TGW, CotC, Count Tabula.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:22:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Micah J. Smukler)
Subject: Re: Acka: House

>On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Micah J. Smukler wrote:
>
>> I am renaming my house "'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves/Did gyre
>etc.
>
>> Why not?
>
>Because you've just completely stuffed the map.  Try fitting that into
>60x60 pixels :-(
>
>Yours,
>Slakko
>annoyed Map-Harfer
>--
>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 - ex-President/still Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

No rule that I can find requires you to have the entire name of my
house on the map.

AtP

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:23:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: ear

>X-Authentication-Warning: eidolon.speakeasy.org: majordom set sender to
[email-masked] using -f
>Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 12:53:01 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Sent-At-Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 17:34:44 +0100 (BST)
>From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: Acka: ear
>X-X-Sender: [email-masked]
>Sender: [email-masked]
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>
>On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Micah J. Smukler wrote:
>
>> I am paying A$4 to the Ackanomic Institute of Genetic Replication
>> to purchase 1 pointy ear.
>
>I laugh at Attila the Pun, regardless of his actions.
>

I laugh hysterically at Attila the Pun, regardless of his actions.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:37:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 570 (FALSE)

> Sigh. This goes once again to /dev/joe and Guy Fawkes. Oh and in the event
> that the office of inventor is vacant I am calling another nomination.
Reply
> to vote.

Sigh again. As Slakko pointed out to me I've just written a load of rubbish.
What I meant was reply to nominate yourself (you can do that from this
message too (presuming of course that there actually is a nomination)).

TGW, Count Tabula.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:54:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 570 (FALSE)

>  The Judge on this has ruled FALSE, yet by his own argument /dev/joe has
> been elected Inventor; even if he does not actually hold the post.  The
> orignal call _did not_ specify that /dev/joe _was_ Inventor.  

The problem with this, as I look at it, is that "elected Inventor" is
hideously vague. I think the best interpretation would be "elected into the
position of inventor". For this to be the case /dev/joe would have to have
become inventor. The interpretation Wild Card seems to be in favour of is
"won the election for inventor". Which one the court will go with I don't
know.

I also beg the court to try to figure out who actually is Inventor as well,
whatever they decide as the verdict for this. I was considering calling a CFJ
with the statement "/dev/joe is the inventor" but decided not to bother since
you can pretty much guarantee that the two verdicts coming back would
contradict each other.

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 17:35:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Dice server)
Subject: Acka: Otzma: Start of Day

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Dice rolls requested by: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Rolls also sent to:
    [email-masked]

# Determining Method of Otzma Card Creation
# 1 - Deterministic
# 2 - Random
# Yours,
# Slakko - RuneMaker.

No. of sides on every die:      2
No. of dice for every roll:     1
No. of dice rolls requested:    9
No. of rolls per line:          9

      2      2      2      2      1      2      1      1      2

Information on the dice server:
   DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE!
   Replies to [email-masked] vanish into a seldom-read mailbox.

   For instructions on using the dice server, send a message with
   subject "help" to [email-masked], or see http://www.pbm.com/dice/

   The dice server is provided by:

      Shadow Island Games
      http://www.pbm.com/ds.html

Original message follows:
> From [email-masked]  Fri Apr 17 14:34:40 1998
> Received: (from smtp@localhost) by xkey.com
>       id OAA07016 for <[email-masked]>; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 14:34:40 -0700
> Received: from violet.csi.cam.ac.uk(131.111.8.58) by xkey.com via smtp (V1.3)
>       id sma006990; Fri Apr 17 14:34:30 1998
> Received: from dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk [131.111.141.151] 
>       by violet.csi.cam.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.73 #1)
>       id 0yQImC-0004Dr-00; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 22:34:28 +0100
> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 22:36:36 +0100 (BST)
> From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
> To: Dice Server <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Otzma Day Part 1
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> X-X-Sender: [email-masked]
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> #P [email-masked]
> #S 2
> #D 1
> #R 9
> #L 9
> #C Determining Method of Otzma Card Creation
> #C 1 - Deterministic
> #C 2 - Random
> #C 
> #C Yours,
> #C Slakko - RuneMaker.
> #T Acka: Otzma: Start of Day
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.7

iQCVAwUBNTfK+z8NitsTFjcVAQESXQQApzJ1mS9xoRrjwurRRp84LfF8FTJNoPw5
zDeaiDxJjSxd+xACCxzLsE5eJDo1Z1SgxMQiYGBavb8pXNaBZ6X+BqSLIpwUey4n
iRuW6QXRR+UWMqIv2xQlU+i8uPz3jmPNwm8tJGvE2CCD7jnz2mjfRrqLXh2eZt7k
wOVuDgGpXtY=
=ZRR+
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #110
*******************************