Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #129
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest        Tuesday, April 28 1998        Volume 03 : Number 129

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 00:35:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fictionary Ing Word

rufus wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Apr 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:
> > The ing word for the next round of fictionary is mho.

> which is, of course, [definition censored]

I am calling a snowgod's disease hearing against rufus.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 02:34:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka:  I'm back

>Or is that B'ack?   anyways, I return from vacation.  Did they burn me?
>
Unfortunatly no.. I retracted the hearing Rufus :)  (Slakko pointed out
a valid reason why it wasn't a legal hearing, but I'm hoping to change that :)

- --JT

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 04:06:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Frank Schmidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: MetaMorph

I'm asking the MetaMorph party to accept me as a member.
J. M. Bear

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 04:09:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: TRBBTTDDM,R

As Archaeologist I am going to start building a The Really Big Blue
Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much, Really. It will be complete in 3 days.

K 2

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 09:42:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: MetaMorph

> I'm asking the MetaMorph party to accept me as a member.

I approve of accepting J. M. Bear as a member of MetaMorph.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Sinead O'Connor:Don't Cry For Me Argentina
Current Book--C.J. Cherryh:Chernevog
a^n+b^n=c^n. No solutions for n>2, as can be seen by |#@}NO_CARRI

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:07:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Stripe

Beating the President at eir own game, I hereby award Slakko a Silver
Stripe for having reached a Blue Cross Rank of 80, in a small private
ceremony on the banks of the Ackanomic River.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Fleetwood Mac:Never Going Back Again
Current Book--C.J. Cherryh:Chernevog
Honest, officer!  The smurf was on fire when I got here.

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:28:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Inventor

I wrote, five days ago:
> Since there seems to be a market for them, I am beginning
> construction of a Scroll of Crumble.  It will be complete
> in three days.

This is complete and now an auction begins, minimum bid of A$1.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:41:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Inventor

On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> I wrote, five days ago:
> > Since there seems to be a market for them, I am beginning
> > construction of a Scroll of Crumble.  It will be complete
> > in three days.
> 
> This is complete and now an auction begins, minimum bid of A$1.
> 
> /dev/joe
> 

I bid A$1 for the scroll.

                              - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:43:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (L'homme a tete de choux)
Subject: Re: Acka: Inventor

>This is complete and now an auction begins, minimum bid of A$1.

I bid A$ 5 for the Scroll of Crumble.

Pandora

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:46:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Inventor

On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, L'homme a tete de choux wrote:

> >This is complete and now an auction begins, minimum bid of A$1.
> 
> I bid A$ 5 for the Scroll of Crumble.
> 
 I bid A$ 7 for the Scroll of Crumble.

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:46:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Raquel Peres da Silva" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 577

On 26 Apr 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> Interestingly, I wonder about how far back any effects of this proposal
> can go.

According to rule 701/4, "the illegality or impossibility of a publically
knowable change to the game state goes unreported for at least 14 days, the
action or inaction
which caused that change is considered legal" (sic)

I was counting on it to minimize the effects of the CFJ being judged TRUE,
but I didn't take into account the fact that this rule was created by
Proposal 1365 on 30 Oct 1996, and the quoted text was amended by Proposal
1772 on 10 Mar 1997, and none of them were neither modest nor grandiose
proposals. That would cause them to be considered invalid, and then the
retrocative effects of the CFJ would go until 06 Oct 1996, I guess.

So, I'm now publicly retracting CFJ 577 (as its veredict hasn't been posted
yet), because I think that if it were judged, it had good chances to be
considered TRUE, no matter how much trouble it would cause, so I'll soon be
submiting a proposal to change the text of rule 209 in order to avoid
further CFJ's.

Yours

Ayla
Priestess of the Order of the Razor Boomerangs
Member of the Church of the Evil Ballot Stuffer

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:00:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (L'homme a tete de choux)
Subject: Acka: I am not a female aardvark

I offer A$ 50 to The Gingham Wearer in exchange for one of the trinkets in eir
possession with the string "traffic Warden" in its name.

Pandora

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:09:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Inventor

>> >This is complete and now an auction begins, minimum bid of A$1.
>> I bid A$ 5 for the Scroll of Crumble.
> I bid A$ 7 for the Scroll of Crumble.

I bid $15 for the Scroll of Crumble.

- --JT

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:09:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: I am not a female aardvark

On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, L'homme a tete de choux wrote:

> I offer A$ 50 to The Gingham Wearer in exchange for one of the trinkets in eir
> possession with the string "traffic Warden" in its name.
> 
> Pandora
> 
> 

I'm not sure, but I think that Bolivian navy rule didn't work the way The
Gingham Wearer intended, and has now repealed itself.  Anyone want to back
me up on this one?

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:12:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (L'homme a tete de choux)
Subject: Re: Acka: Inventor

> I bid A$ 7 for the Scroll of Crumble.

I bid A$ 8.

Pandora

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:18:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: I am not a female aardvark

>I'm not sure, but I think that Bolivian navy rule didn't work the way The
>Gingham Wearer intended, and has now repealed itself.  Anyone want to back
>me up on this one?

That's certainly my understanding.  Since it passed on a saturday, and the
rule stated the saturday AFTER it passed stuff would happen.  it also said
that if any sunday came and there were noone with the title aardvark, then
it would repeal, it repealed itself before it ever awarded anyone the title
of aardvark.

- --JT

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:38:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Raquel Peres da Silva" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: I am not a female aardvark

On 28 Apr 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, L'homme a tete de choux wrote:
> 
> > I offer A$ 50 to The Gingham Wearer in exchange for one of the trinkets
in eir
> > possession with the string "traffic Warden" in its name.
> 
> I'm not sure, but I think that Bolivian navy rule didn't work the way The
> Gingham Wearer intended, and has now repealed itself.  Anyone want to
back
> me up on this one?

I have just looked at the list of players' possessions, and I can tell I
was given a trinket named Small off-duty Czechoslovakian traffic Warden 22,
worth A$1. I didn't looked at the other players' possessions, but I guess
everyone else who voted YES for TGW's proposal received one, too. But I
don't know what happened to the aardvarks' scores, *if* they are really
aardvaks. Maybe you should take a look at the scoring and players pages, to
see what happened to yours.

Yours,

Ayla
Priestess of the Order of the Razor Boomerangs
Member of the Church of the Evil Ballot Stuffer

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:47:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (L'homme a tete de choux)
Subject: Re: Acka: I am not a female aardvark

>I'm not sure, but I think that Bolivian navy rule didn't work the way The
>Gingham Wearer intended, and has now repealed itself.  Anyone want to back
>me up on this one?

I bet you're not half as confused as I am.

Whatever, I retract the offer.

Pandora

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:50:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 577, and ramblings from the BBQ

Ayla wrote:
> According to rule 701/4, "the illegality or impossibility of a publically
> knowable change to the game state goes unreported for at least 14 days, the
> action or inaction which caused that change is considered legal" (sic)
> 
> I was counting on it to minimize the effects of the CFJ being judged TRUE,
> but I didn't take into account the fact that this rule was created by
> Proposal 1365 on 30 Oct 1996, and the quoted text was amended by Proposal
> 1772 on 10 Mar 1997, and none of them were neither modest nor grandiose
> proposals. That would cause them to be considered invalid, and then the
> retrocative effects of the CFJ would go until 06 Oct 1996, I guess.
> 
> So, I'm now publicly retracting CFJ 577 (as its veredict hasn't been posted
> yet), because I think that if it were judged, it had good chances to be
> considered TRUE, no matter how much trouble it would cause

This was a CFJ I was kind of hoping to see in the Cortex with Guy Fawkes
(except that Cortices probably don't exist in the CFJ 577 TRUE thread).

I feel this CFJ is false, because at best it's unclear whether that statement
means every non-modest, non-grandiose proposal is invalid or just ones that
declare something like "Thes es a mrondiost propasle." [Thank you, whoever
it was who first said something like this.]  One of the major guidelines
for resolving unclear statements is game custom.  18 months of game custom
can't be wrong -- proposals which clearly make no modesty/grandiosity claim
are valid.

Note that this is one of the main ways all such potentially catastrophic
long-past errors are wiped away -- if everybody here interpreted the rule
a different way than some people (even the same people later) think it
should have been interpreted, it must have been an unclear statement, and
if everybody believed it worked a certain way when it went into effect,
that established game custom that it worked that way.

Ackanomic, in this way, straddles the Platonic/pragmatic fence.  We'll
gladly rewind the game a week or two to account for some mistakes, but
tell us that nothing we've done in the past six months has worked, and
we'll cover it up and make it work anyway. :-)  In the same way, we'll
find a way to demolish any loophole that breaks the fabric of the game,
such as when one player tried to put all the other players on vacation,
or many players tried to create negatively-valued trinkets for fun and
profit.

Interestingly, I spoke with Austin Appleby over the weekend, and when
the topic turned to Ackanomic, he commented on purposefully have left
a loophole in the initial Vacationing rule which would allow players
to put other players on vacation, but he left the game before he saw
how his proposal turned out.  It was a few months and a few amendments
to the rule before anybody tried to exploit that, and the version of
the rule that existed at that time was judged to not support that
interpretation.

Also at Robert Sevin's party were Thierry Joffrain (Calvin N Hobbes),
the Swan brothers (chess piece face and Simon Marty Harriman), Perfect
Tommy (Eric Sebesta), and Ross Bohlen (Paul Leonard), and a few dozen
people who never played Ackanomic.  One of the residents of this
overstuffed apartment had been reading about the game on the web page,
and promised to e-mail me some questions about it and to ask about
joining, but Robert Sevin assured me I would never get that e-mail.
He's a Diplomacy player, so he can fill that empty slot if he ever
decides to join.

Note that Austin Appleby was the only one of the bunch who left the game
so early that he never got an official Ackanomic name -- that idea only
got started with proposal 383, submitted a little over a week after the
game began.  I gave him and a couple of the others a very summarized
history of how the game became such a long-lived thing, when he asked
about it.

I also noticed that everyone there pronounced the name Ackanomic with
a long o.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:56:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 577, and ramblings from the BBQ

On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> I also noticed that everyone there pronounced the name Ackanomic with
> a long o.

Heretics!

Yours,
Slakko
seriously considering founding the Church of the Short O
- -- 
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, Web-Harfer, RuneMaker, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 12:05:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (L'homme a tete de choux)
Subject: Re: Acka: I am not a female aardvark

>I didn't looked at the other players' possessions, but I guess
>everyone else who voted YES for TGW's proposal received one, too.

According to the player pages, TGW still has a load oftraffic warden trinkets,
so I sort of assumed since they hadn't been destroyed, the stuff about
aardvarks still applied, but I overlooked the fact that the rule had repealed
itself.

Pandora

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 12:07:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Frank Schmidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: MetaMorph

Aaron V. Humphrey schrieb:

> > I'm asking the MetaMorph party to accept me as a member.
> I approve of accepting J. M. Bear as a member of MetaMorph.

I guess it will still take some time since Niccolo is on vacation...

J. M. Bear

> a^n+b^n=c^n. No solutions for n>2, as can be seen by |#@}NO_CARRI

n^a+n^b=n^c. No solutions for n>2, as *yawn* can be seen by *snore*

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 12:26:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 577, and ramblings from the BBQ

On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> 
> On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> > I also noticed that everyone there pronounced the name Ackanomic with
> > a long o.
> 
> Heretics!
> 
> Yours,
> Slakko
> seriously considering founding the Church of the Short O

Heretic!  Peter can't be wrong about the way his game is pronounced, can
he?  

rufus

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 12:35:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stripe

On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> Beating the President at eir own game, I hereby award Slakko a Silver
> Stripe for having reached a Blue Cross Rank of 80, in a small private
> ceremony on the banks of the Ackanomic River.

I guffaw at your pitiful attempts at a Stripe Ceremony.
- -- 
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, Web-Harfer, RuneMaker, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 12:58:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 577

Ayla wrote:

>According to rule 701/4, "the illegality or impossibility of a publically
>knowable change to the game state goes unreported for at least 14 days, the
>action or inaction
>which caused that change is considered legal" (sic)
>
>I was counting on it to minimize the effects of the CFJ being judged TRUE,
>but I didn't take into account the fact that this rule was created by
>Proposal 1365 on 30 Oct 1996, and the quoted text was amended by Proposal
>1772 on 10 Mar 1997, and none of them were neither modest nor grandiose
>proposals. That would cause them to be considered invalid, and then the
>retrocative effects of the CFJ would go until 06 Oct 1996, I guess.
>
>So, I'm now publicly retracting CFJ 577 (as its veredict hasn't been posted
>yet), because I think that if it were judged, it had good chances to be
>considered TRUE, no matter how much trouble it would cause, so I'll soon be
>submiting a proposal to change the text of rule 209 in order to avoid
>further CFJ's.

I don't quite understand.  Or perhaps you don't.  CFJs don't cause changes,
they simply answer questions about the rules and game state.  If we are
pretending to play in some Fantasyland because of the potential problem
raised by CFJ 577, then retracting the CFJ doesn't change it.  And letting
it proceed, possibly to a TRUE verdict, doesn't change anything either.  It
is much better, IMO, to settle the issue than to leave it hanging.  Moreover,
going and changing the rules some more now will not alleviate the problem
the problem if a CFJ equivalent to 577 is ever judged TRUE.

The biggest problem surrounding a question of that sort is resolving
all the thread-splitting issues.  For instance, if the statement asserted
in CFJ 577 is true, then what is the true game state?  In particular, is Ayla
a player?  Did CFJ 577, therefore, ever exist at all?  If so, then was Ayla
able to retract it?  What offices do we actually have, and who are the
officers?  If the CFJ is appealed, is it legal to assign it to /dev/joe and
Guy Fawkes?  How do we answer the question in an authoritative and final way,
and clean up all the loose ends?

Unlike Ayla, I am fairly certain that CFJ 577's statement is false.  In fact,
the best argument for that may be that we have been treating it as false for a
year and a half -- game custom is therefore deeply entrenched in contradiction
of the statement in question.

The question that arises now is this: do we want to try to get an
authoritative answer to this question via CFJ?  It will be a mess if we do.
The alternative, which I favor, is to accept, informally, that CFJ 577's
statement is false.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 13:11:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 577

On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, John Bollinger wrote:
> Unlike Ayla, I am fairly certain that CFJ 577's statement is false.  In fact,
> the best argument for that may be that we have been treating it as false for a
> year and a half -- game custom is therefore deeply entrenched in contradiction
> of the statement in question.
> 
> The question that arises now is this: do we want to try to get an
> authoritative answer to this question via CFJ?  It will be a mess if we do.
> The alternative, which I favor, is to accept, informally, that CFJ 577's
> statement is false.

If CFJ 577 is false, which i think it is, then we should have a CFJ and
make it so, formally.  Just ignoring the possible problem isn't the way to
go.  I think it is trivally false, so we dont' have a problme.

rufus

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 13:21:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 577, and ramblings from the BBQ

> > > I also noticed that everyone there pronounced the name Ackanomic with
> > > a long o.
> > 
> > Heretics!
> > 
> > Yours,
> > Slakko
> > seriously considering founding the Church of the Short O
> 
> Heretic!  Peter can't be wrong about the way his game is pronounced, can
> he?  

Okay, hands up, who voted against my proposal? If you do get round to a
founding a short o church then who'd be willing to join a long o church?

TGW.

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 14:36:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 577

On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, David Scheidt wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, John Bollinger wrote:
> > Unlike Ayla, I am fairly certain that CFJ 577's statement is false.  In fact,
> > the best argument for that may be that we have been treating it as false for a
> > year and a half -- game custom is therefore deeply entrenched in contradiction
> > of the statement in question.
> > 
> > The question that arises now is this: do we want to try to get an
> > authoritative answer to this question via CFJ?  It will be a mess if we do.
> > The alternative, which I favor, is to accept, informally, that CFJ 577's
> > statement is false.
> 
> If CFJ 577 is false, which i think it is, then we should have a CFJ and
> make it so, formally.  Just ignoring the possible problem isn't the way to
> go.  I think it is trivally false, so we dont' have a problme.
> 
> 
> rufus
> 

As Ayla's mentor, I knew this CFJ was coing for some time before it was
actually released.  She (it is she, isn't it?  I should know these things
damnit...) was worried about potentially breaking the game, but I told her
to go ahead.  My reasons were much the same as what Thinman has said,
ignoring it won't make the problem go away.  At the time, I did think that
the effects of a true verdict would be limited, because of the 14 day
clause.  I disagree with Thinman that we should just informaly agree that
CFJ 577 is false.  We really should have a judgement on this issue, no
matter how difficult it is to reach one properly.  I feel this way
because, contrary to rufus' opinion, the CFJ is not trivialy anything.
This CFJ points out what could be some very serious mistakes that we have
made.  We need to get something on the books, as it were, that resolves
things one way or another, or this will just come back to haunt us later.

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 14:38:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Noms

I am now announcing nominations for the vacant post of Org-Harfer.
You have three days to respond.
- -- 
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, Web-Harfer, RuneMaker, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 14:46:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Archivist Call

On Sat, 25 Apr 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Apr 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:
> 
> > > I am issuing a Preservation Declaration for:
> > > 
> > > The Amulet of Yendor
> > 
> > I think the Amulet of Yendor is a Trinket, and so this is not valid.
> > 
> > Perhaps you meant the *Widget* of Yendor??
> 
> I am issuing a Preservation Declaration for the Widget of Yendor.

Three days have passed without an objection being lodged.  The Widget of
Yendor has been destroyed.  The Exhibit will be available shortly for your
perusal in the Harfonian Institute (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Entities Page)

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, Web-Harfer, RuneMaker, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 15:13:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Swingpoint Correction II

JT pointed out an error:
TGW got a FairPlay as well.

So eir Swingpoint total is actually 32.

- -- 
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, Web-Harfer, RuneMaker, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 16:55:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 577

> As Ayla's mentor, I knew this CFJ was coing for some time before it was
> actually released.  She (it is she, isn't it?  I should know these things
> damnit...) was worried about potentially breaking the game, but I told her
> to go ahead.  My reasons were much the same as what Thinman has said,
> ignoring it won't make the problem go away.  At the time, I did think that
> the effects of a true verdict would be limited, because of the 14 day
> clause.  I disagree with Thinman that we should just informaly agree that
> CFJ 577 is false.  We really should have a judgement on this issue, no
> matter how difficult it is to reach one properly.  I feel this way
> because, contrary to rufus' opinion, the CFJ is not trivialy anything.
> This CFJ points out what could be some very serious mistakes that we have
> made.  We need to get something on the books, as it were, that resolves
> things one way or another, or this will just come back to haunt us later.

Basically, what he said. I too knew that this was coming because Ayla had
mailed it to me as an attempted CFJ. Fortunately however, she (I'm almost
positive she's a she - I mean she calls herself a priestess) didn't actually
say it was a CFJ submission and there was no clear statement reasoning or
anything and since she later told me she didn't want me to distribute it I
thought I would be fairly safe in not doing so. I too urged her to submit it
since at the time I thought that the effect of a true verdict would be
limited; it was only later that I realised that this wouldn't be the case
(I'm not actually convinced here, I think the 14 day clause might be able to
gloss over it's none creation (with a bit of prodding if necessary :-))
although I've not had enough of a look at the rule yet to say for certain). I
also agree with Vynd that we should get a judgement and although I don't
think that it is trivial I'm pretty sure that the judgment will be that we
don't have a problem (I can't remember which verdict this is, but would
everybody please note the double negative). Oh yeah, and ThinMan's spelt with
a capital M. <g>

TGW.

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 17:59:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: BV

I am using 4 of my swingpoints to create a bonus vote.

TGW.

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 18:09:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Raquel Peres da Silva" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 577

ThinMan wrote:

> Ayla wrote:
> 
> >So, I'm now publicly retracting CFJ 577 (as its veredict hasn't been
posted
> >yet), because I think that if it were judged, it had good chances to be
> >considered TRUE, no matter how much trouble it would cause, so I'll soon
be
> >submiting a proposal to change the text of rule 209 in order to avoid
> >further CFJ's.
> 
> I don't quite understand.  Or perhaps you don't.  CFJs don't cause
changes,
> they simply answer questions about the rules and game state.

According to the rules, "a Call for Judgement (CFJ), is an assertion about
the rules, the facts, or their interpretation." (rule 211/18). Also, "a
statement verified (or nullified) by judgement applies retroactively to any
past game situation it may concern." (rule 215/1)

IMO, it means that a CFJ *may* cause changes. If the judgement of
newly-retracted CFJ 577 stated that any proposal were invalid, they would
be considered as having never been voted and accepted, according to rule
701/4.

> If we are
> pretending to play in some Fantasyland because of the potential problem
> raised by CFJ 577, then retracting the CFJ doesn't change it. And letting
> it proceed, possibly to a TRUE verdict, doesn't change anything either. 

According to rule 330/13, "a player may retract his own CFJ as a public
action. This action will fail if a verdict on the CFJ has already been
delivered." So, it may not be able to change the situation, but at least
Atila the Pun won't be forced to deliver eir judgement in the next 5 days.
If we were really playing in some Fantasyland, e would have to judge the
CFJ TRUE, and then we would be forced to deal with its consequences
imediately. So, my retraction at least would have given us more time to
think.

> It is much better, IMO, to settle the issue than to leave it hanging.
Moreover,
> going and changing the rules some more now will not alleviate the problem
> the problem if a CFJ equivalent to 577 is ever judged TRUE.

IMHO, if there is a reasonable chance that a CFJ like former-577 is ever
submited and judged TRUE, we should try now to minimize its effects (i.e.,
an amend to rule 209 clearing this modest/grandiose thing up would make
sure it wouldn't affect future proposals). This would be a firts
precaution. Then we could discuss it more widely and - my opinion - judge
it as soon as possible to get rid of it. But if everyone is sure that
there's no such risk, then I'll be glad to just forget it.

> Unlike Ayla, I am fairly certain that CFJ 577's statement is false.  In
fact,
> the best argument for that may be that we have been treating it as false
for a
> year and a half -- game custom is therefore deeply entrenched in
contradiction
> of the statement in question.
> 
> The question that arises now is this: do we want to try to get an
> authoritative answer to this question via CFJ?  It will be a mess if we
do.
> The alternative, which I favor, is to accept, informally, that CFJ 577's
> statement is false.

If everybody thinks that CFJ 577's statement is false, I think the best way
to make sure it won't arise again is to submit it again and let it be
judged FALSE. I can't say I'm absolutely sure it is false, but I'll gladly
accept the majority's decision. 

That's my point of view. I guess this should be discussed publicly before
something definitive is done.

Yours,

Ayla
Priestess of the Order of the Razor Boomerangs
Member of the Church of the Evil Ballot Stuffer

P.S. BTW, Vynd: yes, it's she. :-)

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 18:25:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 577

> According to the rules, "a Call for Judgement (CFJ), is an assertion about
> the rules, the facts, or their interpretation." (rule 211/18). Also, "a
> statement verified (or nullified) by judgement applies retroactively to any
> past game situation it may concern." (rule 215/1)
> 
> IMO, it means that a CFJ *may* cause changes. If the judgement of
> newly-retracted CFJ 577 stated that any proposal were invalid, they would
> be considered as having never been voted and accepted, according to rule
> 701/4.

What it means (or to be more accurate is generally thought to mean in my
experience) is that the CFJ verdict applies to everything in the past. It
doesn't actually change things at all. If you are right then the proposals
are still invalid whether there has been a CFJ on it or not.

> According to rule 330/13, "a player may retract his own CFJ as a public
> action. This action will fail if a verdict on the CFJ has already been
> delivered." So, it may not be able to change the situation, but at least
> Atila the Pun won't be forced to deliver eir judgement in the next 5 days.
> If we were really playing in some Fantasyland, e would have to judge the
> CFJ TRUE, and then we would be forced to deal with its consequences
> imediately. So, my retraction at least would have given us more time to
> think.

I'm not sure I follow you. Surely if we are as ThinMan so eloquently put it
"pretending to play in some Fantasyland" then surely it would be best to try
to deal with it ASAP. The longer we delay the more changes are possible. Just
because there hasn't been a CFJ on it doesn't mean it's not true; the CFJ
can't suddenly make it true. Besides, any fix proposal would run into huge
difficulties because we wouldn't be able to tell who was eligible to vote on
it, whether the player who submitted it was a player, who was tabulator, etc.

> IMHO, if there is a reasonable chance that a CFJ like former-577 is ever
> submited and judged TRUE, we should try now to minimize its effects (i.e.,
> an amend to rule 209 clearing this modest/grandiose thing up would make
> sure it wouldn't affect future proposals). This would be a firts
> precaution. Then we could discuss it more widely and - my opinion - judge
> it as soon as possible to get rid of it. But if everyone is sure that
> there's no such risk, then I'll be glad to just forget it.

Again, see my above comments.

> If everybody thinks that CFJ 577's statement is false, I think the best way
> to make sure it won't arise again is to submit it again and let it be
> judged FALSE. I can't say I'm absolutely sure it is false, but I'll gladly
> accept the majority's decision. 

I agree with you here, we definitely should try to get a judgement on it. I
know I can't bare the suspense :-).

> That's my point of view. I guess this should be discussed publicly before
> something definitive is done.

Again, I agree.

> P.S. BTW, Vynd: yes, it's she. :-)

See, I knew it!

TGW, a he.

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 18:47:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 577

>I agree with you here, we definitely should try to get a judgement on it. I
>know I can't bare the suspense :-).

Ack.. Naked suspense.. What an ugly thing :)

Who me? silly?
- --JT, a dragon

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 20:47:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Eleusis G2R1 (Robert Sevin)

Ayla played the Ace of Hearts.  This is a correct play.  It is now
Robert Sevin's turn.  (Also, as Ayla pointed out to me, I'd mistakenly
put down the Two of Hearts I picked from Attila the Pun's hand down as
a Two of Diamonds.  This should be fixed now.)

Players and Scores:
    Alfvaen         : 0  ( 0 cards) (Deus)
    Attila the Pun  : 0  (18 cards)
    K 2             : 0  (17 cards)
    Fortunato       : 0  (16 cards)
    Ayla            : 0  (13 cards)
  * Robert Sevin    : 0  (14 cards)
    JT              : 0  (14 cards)
(* denotes whose turn it is to play -- play will be entered only after Deus
   and prophet respond to the play)

Card ranks:
The cards in each suit are ranked A-K with Ace low(values 1-13).
There are no Wild cards.

Correct Plays            | Incorrect plays
- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------------
  8 D (starter)          |
  8 H (Attila the Pun)   | 9 S (K 2)
  6 H (Fortunato[+])     | 6 S (Ayla)
  6 H (Robert Sevin)     | 
  7 H (JT)               | 5 H (Attila the Pun), 9 D (K 2)
* 6 C (Fortunato)        |
  2 C (Ayla)             | 6 C (Robert Sevin), 2 S (JT)
  2 H (Attila the Pun[+])| 2 D (K 2)
  J C (Fortunato)        |
  A H (Ayla)             |

[+] - Invalid "No Play", card selected by Deus
 *  - marks every tenth card

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Laura Branigan:Self Control
Current Book--C.J. Cherryh:Chernevog
He couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel.

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 20:52:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: MetaMorph

> > > I'm asking the MetaMorph party to accept me as a member.
> > I approve of accepting J. M. Bear as a member of MetaMorph.

> I guess it will still take some time since Niccolo is on vacation...

On the contrary, this means we don't have to wait for em.  :-)  All
we're waiting for now is K 2's approval.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Laura Branigan:Self Control
Current Book--C.J. Cherryh:Chernevog
Jim just quit and packed extra bags for Liz Owen.

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 20:56:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Loose Ends

Since two-thirds of the membership of the Rebellion(me and Slakko)
approved its disbandment, then the disbandment occurred a week after
the original suggestion, at Apr 25 20:26 EDT.  Note to Rule-Harfer:
I believe that this also means that Rule 1135 repeals itself.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Beatles:All You Need Is Love
Current Book--C.J. Cherryh:Chernevog
Tenser, said the tensor...Tenser, said the tensor

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 20:58:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: My Bad

I just noticed that I'm overdue by several hours for the description of
the P2876 Parade.  I guess I made a mistake in trying to lump it in with
my Phoebe post, B-Ack description, and maybe an issue of my newspaper.
I've put a bit of work into the description already, so maybe I'll post
it belatedly anyway.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Beatles:All You Need Is Love
Current Book--C.J. Cherryh:Chernevog
A splash and hiss beyond my measuring

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 23:06:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: MetaMorph

I approve of accepting J. M. Bear as a member of MetaMorph.

K 2

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #129
*******************************