Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #157
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest         Sunday, May 17 1998         Volume 03 : Number 157

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 00:26:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Now I'm just plain pouty.

I change my name to acka://dev/joe

From RFC 101:

The ACKA protocol is remarkable in that clients have no need to have any
knowledge whatsoever of the rules governing the protocol.  Authors of
servers are encouraged to code in a bunch of snippy responses when clients
break the rules, however.

acka://dev/joe
primitive, schmitive.

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 01:34:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vulcan Action

I suggest Vulcan use its secret lab to create a Spell Book of Chorg in
my possession, since my last one was impolitely burned.
If I still have to do so, I approve of the action.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 01:36:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka:  Now I'm just plain pouty.

> I change my name to acka://dev/joe

I ack this, because it won't do me any good not to, with Vynd's recent
Proposal...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Frankie Goes To Hollywood:Liverpool
Current Book--Michael Coney:Cat Karina
I envy those who are in denial.

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 01:39:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Vulcan Action

On Sun, 17 May 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> I suggest Vulcan use its secret lab to create a Spell Book of Chorg in
> my possession, since my last one was impolitely burned.
> If I still have to do so, I approve of the action.
> 
> /dev/joe
> 

I approve.  It happens.

                                   - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 01:41:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka:  Now I'm just plain pouty.

> I change my name to acka://dev/joe

Actually, now that I think about it, I made colons illegal name
characters a few months ago, didn't I?  So this isn't a valid name,
and so the change doesn't occur.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Frankie Goes To Hollywood:Liverpool
Current Book--Michael Coney:Cat Karina
"You want the police here--in my underwear?"

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 02:06:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Now I'm just plain pouty.

>> I change my name to acka://dev/joe
> 
> Actually, now that I think about it, I made colons illegal name
> characters a few months ago, didn't I?

For which I have been very grateful for in the meantime, by the way.
For one thing, HTTP authentication wouldn't work with names containing
colons....

b

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 03:29:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 593 (J.M. Bear)

I'm going to attach some Bronze Torch reasoning to this, see below.  I've
kept only those parts of the initiators reasoning that I address in my own
reasoning.

On Sat, 16 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> J.M. Bear has been selected.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 593- May 16, 1998
> Subject: Chess
> Initiator: Alfvaen (sent May 16, 1998, 16:21)
> Judge: J.M. Bear (selected May 16, 1998, 17:00)
> Judgement: 
> 
> Statement:
> Alfvaen has achieved a Winning Condition within the past week.
> 
> Initiator's Reasoning:
> This is a Cycle Win CFJ.
> 
> I believe that my score is infinite, since it is being constantly increased
> by two points.
> 
> Here is the text of Proposal 2938, which was accepted at Sat, 2 May 1998
> 19:55:21 EDT:
> 
> > Proposal 2938 - Sat 25 Apr 1998 08:31 EDT
> > Theatre Monkeys
> > The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)
> 
> > This is a modest proposal.
> 
> > Modify section VII of rule 34o to read:
> 
> > "VII. Alphabetical ordering shall be determined by a word-by-word
> > comparison, each word compared letter-by-letter. For these purposes: A word
> > is considered to be delimited by whitespace; an initial word 'The' or 'the'
> > is ignored; a single string of digits is considered equivalent to a letter;
> > digital 'letters' precede alphabetical letters; accented letters come
> > immediately after the unaccented form of the letter; and non-alphanumeric
> > characters are ignored (excluding whitespace used for the purpose of
> > delimiting words, which counts only for this purpose); and case is ignored.
> > All else failing, two words that are otherwise equivalent shall be sorted
> > in ASCII collation order.
> 
> > {{The Gingham Wearer loses two points. Alfvaen gains two points. [He
> > reminded me about the need to do this.]}}
> 
> A prior CFJ determined that "34o" was an unambiguous misspelling of "340".
> 
> From, ironically enough, Rule 340 itself, comes the text:
> 
>   III. When text is specified as delimited, the end of the document in
>   question serves as an ending delimiter if an ending delimiter is
>   otherwise missing.  Delimiters do not nest, except when the double
>   quote character is used as a delimiter.  Text delimited by double
>   quotes is known as a string.
> 
> Now, P2938 does not specifically state that the replacement text for
> Rule 340 is delimited by double quotes, but I think that since it is
> unlikely that the Rule-Harfer put the leading quote into the new text
> of Rule 340, it is to be implicitly considered as being delimited.  The
> absence of another double-quote character in P2938 results in the end
> of the document in question serving as an ending delimiter.  So the
> entire text of the last two paragraphs, including the double-brace-
> enclosed text at the end, is added to Rule 340.
> 

Bronze Torch Reasoning:

I believe there are a number of problems with Alfvaen's reasoning and
statement.

One important question is when, exactly, did Alfvaen achieve a Winning
Condition.  Proposal 2938 was accepted about two weeks ago.  If the rest
of Alfvaen's reasoning is correct, then his score shot up to infinity
immediately, putting him over the Magic Number.  To me, this would seem to
be when Alfvaen achieved a Winning Condition.  Since it was more than a
week ago, and there is no indication that Alfvaen has achieved a winning
condition in the past 7 days through some other means, this CFJ should be
judged FALSE.

I also disagree, however, as to what happened when Proposal 2938 passed.
Alfvaen claims that the entire text of the proposal following the first
double-quote mark was amended to Rule 340.  He states in his reasoning
that because there was a double quote mark at the begining of the third
paragraph, the following text was being delimited by double-quotes.

Does that one double quote sign mean that all following text was being
delimited by double quotes?  I believe not.  Rule 340 does mention double
quotes in section III (quoted by Alfvaen) as something which can serve as
a delimiter, even a special kind of delimiter.  Nowhere does it say that
double quotes appearing in proposals are always delimiters.  As with all
other rule sanctioned delimiter symbols, there are two ways to tell
if a double quote is serving as a delimiter.  One way is if a section of
text is enclosed within a pair of the symbols, as the examples for curly
braces and square brackets later in Rule 340 demonstrate.  The other way,
as section III describes, is "When text is SPECIFIED as delimited,"
(emphasis mine) in which case a missing end symbol would mean all text up
until the end of the proposal being delimited.

Is any of the text in Proposal 2938 surrounded by double quotes?  No.  Is
any of the text in Proposal 2938 specified as being delimited by double
quotes?  No.  Therefor, none of the text in proposal 2938 is delimited by
double quotes, the single double quote symbol at the begining of paragraph
3 has no special meaning (but should be included in Rule 340).  Thus
Proposal 2938 was a proposal listing three one time effects: An amendment
to Rule 340 described in paragraph three, a 2 point score loss for The
Gingham Wearer, and a 2 point score gain for Alfvaen.

                          - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 03:56:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 593 (J.M. Bear)

On Sun, 17 May 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> Bronze Torch Reasoning:
> 
> I believe there are a number of problems with Alfvaen's reasoning and
> statement.
> 
> One important question is when, exactly, did Alfvaen achieve a Winning
> Condition.  Proposal 2938 was accepted about two weeks ago.  If the rest
> of Alfvaen's reasoning is correct, then his score shot up to infinity
> immediately, putting him over the Magic Number.  To me, this would seem to
> be when Alfvaen achieved a Winning Condition.  Since it was more than a
> week ago, and there is no indication that Alfvaen has achieved a winning
> condition in the past 7 days through some other means, this CFJ should be
> judged FALSE.

Actually, I don't think Alfvaen achieved a winning condition at all.

Rule 207 states with regard to its score changes (those resulting from
acceptance or rejection of proposals) the following:

Rule 207/21 
     Scoring When A Proposal's Voting Results are Reported 

I. Timing of these score changes 

All the following scoring changes are applied at the time the Proposal's
tabulated voting results are officially reported, unless the new rule or
effect calls for an instantaneous change to 1 or more players' score, in
which case the score changes detailed in this rule are applied an
infinitesimal amount of time after those effects are applied. 

If the effect of the Proposal was to add the {{}} delimited text to Rule
340, then the effect called for an instantaneous change to 1 or more
players' scores.  So immediately after that rule is applied to give
Alfvaen 2 points, and to cost TGW 2 points, the Modest proposal scoring is
applied, to give TGW 5 points for authoring it.  

If the score changes in Rule 340 are applied infinitely often, then
therefore so must the score changes in Rule 207, according to Rule 207.
Therefore TGW would have been first to cross the Magic Number, hence
Alfvaen never obtained a Winning Condition.

However, Alfvaen is also over the Magic Number (if Rule 340 was applied
infinitely often), and this happened an infinitesimal amount of time after
the proposal passed, which is well over one week ago.  So neither player
achieved a winning condition in the last week.

This is one interpretation, of course, your mileage may vary.

The rest of Vynd's argument I will not quibble with at this stage.
- -- 
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: Sun, 17 May 1998 04:01:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Stilt Me

My last rejected proposal was 2942.
Since then 2947, 2957, 2959, 2963, 2976, 2991, 3003, 3015, 3020 and 3024
have all been accepted.  That's 10 in a row, therefore I now have a
Stilton.

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: Sun, 17 May 1998 07:50:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Scam Attempt

The list of Dispensations (as defined in Rule 1020) is not listed as an
entity, anywhere.

I add the following SCAM-delimited item to the end of the Dispensations
List:

SCAM
Society for the Prevention of Ackanomic Misdemeanours: Amend any Rule in
the Rules of Ackanomic.
SCAM

Nothing prevents this, and the list of Dispensations is not an entity, 
so this happens.

I suggest that the Society for the Prevention of Ackanomic Misdemeanours
(also known as SPAM) amend Rule 1020 by appending the following
ONLYUS-delimited text:

ONLYUS
The list of Dispensations is an unownable entity.
ONLYUS

The submission of this suggestion counts as approval.  The other two
members of SPAM have proxied their approval.  Therefore, this happens.

Why do I feel that we might soon see a Rule 1151 along the lines of "SPAM
once ruled Ackanomic..." coming along?

Yours,
Slakko
I want to see how people intend to break this scam.
- -- 
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: Sun, 17 May 1998 08:03:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Ackan Reserve Seats

The voting period for the AR-P is over and the results are as follows:

K 2:
J.M. Bear
K 2

Slakko:
else...if & EBS
Slakko & EBS

IdiotBoy:
Rex Mundi & EBS
Alfvaen
ThinMan & EBS
Pandora
The Gingham Wearer

JT:
JT & EBS
Joe Java

which means that IdiotBoy is the new AR-P.

In the election for the AR-F there are two nominees:

Slakko
JT

You may reply to vote if you wish to.

TGW, Count Tabula.

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 08:03:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 588 (TRUE)

This has been judged TRUE by K 2.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 588- May 07, 1998
Subject: Burnings
Initiator: Slakko (sent May 07, 1998, 03:00)
Judge: K 2 (selected May 07, 1998, 12:57)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:
/dev/joe and Vynd were both burned on Tuesday 5th May.

Initiator's Reasoning:
Rule 670, section 1) says:
1) Upon the end of a cycle which exceeded 30 days in length, or as
otherwise directed by the rules, The "Commission d'Arts" (Commission)
shall begin session, which shall last for 7 days. The Senators shall be
the Commissioners, thus composing this body. Exception: The
Commission shall not be called if it has been less than 60 days since any
previous one has been called. 

The most logical way to interpret the last sentence, starting
"Exception:", is that it attempts to describe a way in which the
Commission d'Arts is not started.  The only way this can happen is if we
interpret "been called" as meaning the same as "began session", and "be
called" as "begin session".  Otherwise the last sentence has no effect,
which is the wrong meaning to give it when there is an equally reasonable
meaning which does have an effect (in accordance with game custom).

Rule 670, section 4) says:
4) If the Commission fails to produce the report within the constraints of
this rule, or if the Commission has not produced the report within 4
days since it was called, then after a 4 day grace period (to allow the
members of the Commission to dwell on what they have done) every
member of the Commission will be burned as a witch and have their score
reduced by 2 points. 

The commission produced eir report on Sunday 3rd May or Monday 4th of May.
However, the Commission began session on Monday 27th April.  Hence, if
"begin session" and "be called" are synonymous for the purposes of this
rule (as interpreted in section 1, for example), then, as the report was
not produced before Saturday 2nd May, the Commission had not produced the
report within 4 days of it "being called", and hence on Tuesday 5th of May
(8 days after the last cycle ended and forced the Commission to begin
session) every member of the Commission was burned as a witch.

/dev/joe and Vynd were both Senators at the time the last Cycle ended, and
have not lost eir Seats since, so both of them were members of the
Commission, and so both were burned on Tuesday.

Judge's Reasoning:
The Collins Thesaurus I happen to have open in front of me lists the
synonyms of call as announce, appoint, declare, ordain, among others. It
seems
pretty clear that the first sentence of Rule 670 announces the Commission
d'Arts and the second appoints the senators to it. The fact that the third
sentence actually states "be called" would cement  in the idea that the
previous two sentences have been doing just that. So it is certain that the
Commission d'Arts "was called" at the end of the cycle. Since its results
were
produced latter than May 2nd the entire senate was burned as a witch (or at
least its members were). I hope the senates ashes will forget Acka's
hastiness
in this matter.

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 08:04:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 594 (AtP)

Attila the Pun has been selected.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 594- May 16, 1998
Subject: Heretics
Initiator: JT  (sent May 16, 1998, 01:56)
Judge: Attila the Pun (selected May 17, 1998, 07:21)
Judgement: 

Statement:
   A witch is a heretic.

Initiator's Reasoning:
   Within rule 1307, 'Ackanomic Middle Ages' there are references both to
witches and heretics, and they are used semi-interchangebly.

   A prime example of this is the last paragraph where it refers to saving
a witch from burning, or saving a heretic.  This implies some sort of
equivalence between the two states.
   Also in the second paragraph, the alleged witch is burnt as a
heretic.  The next sentance refers to them as a witch, no longer as an
alleged witch, but as a witch, because they have now been burnt.  The act
of burning the alleged witch made them a heretic and also a witch.
   Now in 1307.1, it refers to an alleged heretic and treats it as the
same as an alleged witch as per 1307.  Therefore by this rule as well a
witch is equivalent to a heretic.

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 08:04:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 593 (J.M. Bear)

> One important question is when, exactly, did Alfvaen achieve a Winning
> Condition.  Proposal 2938 was accepted about two weeks ago.  If the rest
> of Alfvaen's reasoning is correct, then his score shot up to infinity
> immediately, putting him over the Magic Number.  To me, this would seem to
> be when Alfvaen achieved a Winning Condition.  Since it was more than a
> week ago, and there is no indication that Alfvaen has achieved a winning
> condition in the past 7 days through some other means, this CFJ should be
> judged FALSE.

Rule 603 states:

"If a voting player has a number of points equal to or greater than the Magic
Number, and that player is the first one to have done so in the current
Cycle, then that player has achieved a Winning Condition."

If the scam was successful then does Alfvaen have a number of points greater
than or equal to the magic number? Yes he does. Was he the first player to
achieve this in this cycle? Again, yes. Therefore Alfvaen has achieved a
winning condition. The rule does not say that the winning condition is
achieved only when the player goes above the magic number.

> I also disagree, however, as to what happened when Proposal 2938 passed.
> Alfvaen claims that the entire text of the proposal following the first
> double-quote mark was amended to Rule 340.  He states in his reasoning
> that because there was a double quote mark at the begining of the third
> paragraph, the following text was being delimited by double-quotes.
> 
> Does that one double quote sign mean that all following text was being
> delimited by double quotes?  I believe not.  Rule 340 does mention double
> quotes in section III (quoted by Alfvaen) as something which can serve as
> a delimiter, even a special kind of delimiter.  Nowhere does it say that
> double quotes appearing in proposals are always delimiters.  As with all
> other rule sanctioned delimiter symbols, there are two ways to tell
> if a double quote is serving as a delimiter.  One way is if a section of
> text is enclosed within a pair of the symbols, as the examples for curly
> braces and square brackets later in Rule 340 demonstrate.  The other way,
> as section III describes, is "When text is SPECIFIED as delimited,"
> (emphasis mine) in which case a missing end symbol would mean all text up
> until the end of the proposal being delimited.
> 
> Is any of the text in Proposal 2938 surrounded by double quotes?  No.  Is
> any of the text in Proposal 2938 specified as being delimited by double
> quotes?  No.  Therefor, none of the text in proposal 2938 is delimited by
> double quotes, the single double quote symbol at the begining of paragraph
> 3 has no special meaning (but should be included in Rule 340).  Thus
> Proposal 2938 was a proposal listing three one time effects: An amendment
> to Rule 340 described in paragraph three, a 2 point score loss for The
> Gingham Wearer, and a 2 point score gain for Alfvaen.

I shall now return to the text of my proposal:

> Proposal 2938 - Sat 25 Apr 1998 08:31 EDT
> Theatre Monkeys
> The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)

> This is a modest proposal.

> Modify section VII of rule 34o to read:

> "VII. Alphabetical ordering shall be determined by a word-by-word
> comparison, each word compared letter-by-letter. For these purposes: A word
> is considered to be delimited by whitespace; an initial word 'The' or 'the'
> is ignored; a single string of digits is considered equivalent to a letter;
> digital 'letters' precede alphabetical letters; accented letters come
> immediately after the unaccented form of the letter; and non-alphanumeric
> characters are ignored (excluding whitespace used for the purpose of
> delimiting words, which counts only for this purpose); and case is ignored.
> All else failing, two words that are otherwise equivalent shall be sorted
> in ASCII collation order.
> 
> {{The Gingham Wearer loses two points. Alfvaen gains two points. [He
> reminded me about the need to do this.]}}

I fail to see why this wouldn't result in the entirety of the proposal from "
onwards being dumped into rule 340. Just because there is a line of
whhitespace between the two bits doesn't mean they are totally different
effects.

TGW.

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 08:17:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 593 (J.M. Bear)

On Sun, 17 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> > One important question is when, exactly, did Alfvaen achieve a Winning
> > Condition.  Proposal 2938 was accepted about two weeks ago.  If the rest
> > of Alfvaen's reasoning is correct, then his score shot up to infinity
> > immediately, putting him over the Magic Number.  To me, this would seem to
> > be when Alfvaen achieved a Winning Condition.  Since it was more than a
> > week ago, and there is no indication that Alfvaen has achieved a winning
> > condition in the past 7 days through some other means, this CFJ should be
> > judged FALSE.
> 
> Rule 603 states:
> 
> "If a voting player has a number of points equal to or greater than the Magic
> Number, and that player is the first one to have done so in the current
> Cycle, then that player has achieved a Winning Condition."
> 
> If the scam was successful then does Alfvaen have a number of points greater
> than or equal to the magic number? Yes he does. Was he the first player to
> achieve this in this cycle? Again, yes. Therefore Alfvaen has achieved a
> winning condition. The rule does not say that the winning condition is
> achieved only when the player goes above the magic number.

No, but it uses the past tense.  Interestingly, it says nothing about when
the player actually achieves the winning condition.  Of course Alfvaen has
achieved a Winning Condition assuming your theory is right - but is e
still _achieving_ one now?  This rule only says that e "has achieved" one
- - which would seem to indicate it is achieved once, at the time it
first became publicly knowable that eir score had exceeded the Magic
Number.

- -- 
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: Sun, 17 May 1998 09:37:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Astro" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Middle ages

I go to the library and join anyone who is demonstrating there.
I say "The Earth is Round! Black is NOT a color!"
I say this repeatedly. This repetition will stop as soon as I wriite a
message to that effect.
I encourage others to do the same.

Astro
This message has no tagline, as a demonstration against the
narrow-mindedness of my fellow Ackans.

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 09:51:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CSR 139

I am using my powers as CSRR to issue CSR 139 as delimited by %H£)SN.

%H£)SN
Delete the last sentence of section 3) of rule 1060 [This organisation will
require a trade licence to be of any use] [I can't quote it directly because
it's in square brackets] including the notes brackets in which it is
contained [just to be on the safe side]. 

Replace the text "b. Change membership policy " in rule 1003 with the text
"b. Change admissions policy ". In the same rule replace " is the average of
orgsim(A, B) and orgsim(B, A)." with  is the average (mean) of orgsim(A, B)
and orgsim(B, A).

Append the following text to rule 1020 immediately before the full stop of
the first sentence: " which is an unownable entity"
%H£)SN

TGW, CSRR.

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 09:52:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 594 (AtP)

On Sun, 17 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

>Attila the Pun has been selected.
>
>Clerk of the Courts
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Call For Judgement 594- May 16, 1998
>Subject: Heretics
>Initiator: JT  (sent May 16, 1998, 01:56)
>Judge: Attila the Pun (selected May 17, 1998, 07:21)
>Judgement: 

Isn't AtP on vacation (as per some comment made by Alfvaen about Eleusis
Game 2 where he claimed AtP was on vacation?)
If he's on Vacation, he's not active by R254, and therefore wasn't a legal
judge to select.

- --JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to sieze the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 10:32:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Scam Attempt

On Sun, 17 May 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
[scam attempt deleted]

I don't believe this worked, and I have files a CFJ with my reasoning :)

- --JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to sieze the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 10:56:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Name change.

No, no, I'm not going to try it again.

I'd just like to thank everyone who stopped me from actually changing my
name.  It'd have been a pain to change it BACK to the most glorious name
of IdiotBoy.

Once and Future IdiotBoy.
We are all Idiots and I am your King.

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 11:40:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Scam Attempt

Slakko wrote:
> The list of Dispensations (as defined in Rule 1020) is not listed as an
> entity, anywhere.
> 
> I add the following SCAM-delimited item to the end of the Dispensations
> List:
> 
> SCAM
> Society for the Prevention of Ackanomic Misdemeanours: Amend any Rule in
> the Rules of Ackanomic.
> SCAM

I don't think it even stands a chance of working.

Rule 101 states:

"The rules and the game state may only be changed as described in the rules.
... Whatever is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by the rules,
however, is permitted and unregulated."

Rule 1020 provides a way to add items to the dispensation list:

"If, 3 days after an Indulgence is published, fewer than 2 players have
objected to the Indulgence, then the Indulgence will be added to the
Dispensations List as a new entry."

So adding things to the dispensation list is regulated, and therefore does
not fall under the "Whatever is not ... regulated" clause.  Therefore, 
"The rules and game state may only be changed as described by the rules."
prevents this.

And just in case, if the SCAM-delimited text above can somehow be considered
a published Indulgence, I object to it.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 11:40:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ackan Reserve Seats

	I would like to reiterate my request for a CSR to add "capital" to
that rule.

	I suggest that the P-setting be set to 0.05
	I suggest that the N-setting be set to 0.2

- --
- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 12:02:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Frank Schmidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 593 (J.M. Bear)

Tom Walmsley schrieb:

> J.M. Bear has been selected.
>
> Clerk of the Courts
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 593- May 16, 1998
> Subject: Chess
> Initiator: Alfvaen (sent May 16, 1998, 16:21)
> Judge: J.M. Bear (selected May 16, 1998, 17:00)
> Statement:
> Alfvaen has achieved a Winning Condition within the past week.

Judgement: FALSE
Judge's reasoning:
I'm currently too stupid to judge all of Alfvaen's reasoning, so I'll
just comment on two points:

First, the CFJ came more than a week after Alfvaen was supposed
to get an infinite score. Therefore, e might get the points, if the part
with Alfvaen gaining points is in the rules, but fails to get the winning
condition. That is, if the CFJ didn't arrive at the CotC more than 14
days after proposal 2938 applied changes to Rule 340 - it arrived
more than 14 days after the Voting Period on 2938 ended.

Second, I do believe that the part causing so much confusion is
ambiguous, and therefore ignored by Rule 104. The gains and
losses part is clearly something that could be either applied
once or an infinite number of times - if the part in double curly
brackets was regarded as normal text. Against the infinite-
number-hypothesis made by Alfvaen, I see the problem that
the effect - Alfvaen gets an infinite number of points - is very
different from the clear wording - Alfvaen gets two points.

So there is an ambiguity if it's applied an infinite number of
times, and at the same time nothing clearly marks the gains
and losses part a clear one-time-effect, although all signs I
see point in that direction. Therefore this is an ambiguity, and
should therefore be ignored by Rule 104 - Alfvaen would
get no points, TGW would lose none, and noone wins the
cycle.

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 12:26:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Frank Schmidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Scam Attempt

> And just in case, if the SCAM-delimited text above can somehow be considered
> a published Indulgence, I object to it.
>
> /dev/joe

I object to the same Indulgence /dev/joe has just objected to.
J. M. Bear

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 12:26:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Frank Schmidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 593 (J.M. Bear)

Frank Schmidt schrieb:

> Tom Walmsley schrieb:
> > J.M. Bear has been selected.

What the...? I'm even too dumb for this!
JMB, considering impeaching IdiotBoy

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 12:44:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ackan Reserve Seats

On Sun, 17 May 1998, Towsner wrote:

> 	I would like to reiterate my request for a CSR to add "capital" to
> that rule.
> 
> 	I suggest that the P-setting be set to 0.05
> 	I suggest that the N-setting be set to 0.2
> 

Just for kicks, I approve of this suggestion.

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 12:47:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Frank Schmidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Retraction of 3053

I hereby retract proposal 3053. (I originally saw this proposal
as being different from TGW's, but it wasn't.)
J. M. Bear

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 13:06:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Scam Attempt

> And just in case, if the SCAM-delimited text above can somehow be
considered
> a published Indulgence, I object to it.

Just to be on the safe side I object too.

TGW.

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 13:06:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 595 (Hubert)

Hubert has been selected.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 595- May 17, 1998
Subject: Dispensations
Initiator: JT  (sent May 17, 1998, 10:31)
Judge: Hubert (selected May 17, 1998, 12:09)
Judgement: 

Statement:
   Rule 1020 has not been amended by SPAM.

Initiator's Reasoning:
On Sun, 17 May 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
>The list of Dispensations (as defined in Rule 1020) is not listed as an
>entity, anywhere.
>
>I add the following SCAM-delimited item to the end of the Dispensations
>List:
>
>SCAM
>Society for the Prevention of Ackanomic Misdemeanours: Amend any Rule in
>the Rules of Ackanomic.
>SCAM
>
>Nothing prevents this, and the list of Dispensations is not an entity, 
>so this happens.
>
>Why do I feel that we might soon see a Rule 1151 along the lines of "SPAM
>once ruled Ackanomic..." coming along?

I'm actually not 100% convinced that this works.
I don't dispute that the text above got added to the dispensation list for
starters, however, I don't believe that it can be used once there.

According to rule 101 'Actions described in the rules may only be
performed, and shall only have those effects, as specified by the rules.'

Now the question is whether 'amending a rule' is an action defined by the
rules, if not, it's unregulated, and I can go an perform it right now.

Therefore the action of 'amending a rule' is regulated by the rules and
can only be informed in accordance with the rules.

All the dispensation list does is allow any action to be peformed by an
organization as an organizational action.  It certainly doesn't allow one
to perform an otherwise regulated action unless the other criterion for
that action are also met.  IE, if an action specified it could only be
performed by a player, I don't believe the dispensation list would allow
that action to occur.

Therefore the action is on the list, but when the org attempts to perform
the action, it runs up against the fact that the action is regulated by
the rules and thus it does not occur.

Given the above reasoning, I don't see how the action of amending rule
1020 was carried out :)

As a good counter-example, if I (assuming the 1020 amendment didn't occur)
had added the line of 'Order of the Razor Boomerangs:  aquire A$1000 from
the treasury' to the dispensation list, then it wouldn't work since the
transfer of money to and from the treasury is well regulated by the rules.

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 13:06:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Infrequent Ackan Volume 1 Issue 22

> The "I'll create my own Party just to be a Swinger award" goes jointly to
> Slakko, The Gingham Wearer (who both did it) and Koxvolio (who suggested
> it later).

I ask Slakko to retract the above statement. Whilst playing party chess was
one of my reasons for creating a new party it was not the only one.

TGW.

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 13:06:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 594 (AtP)

> Isn't AtP on vacation (as per some comment made by Alfvaen about Eleusis
> Game 2 where he claimed AtP was on vacation?)
> If he's on Vacation, he's not active by R254, and therefore wasn't a legal
> judge to select.

Is e? If so then the actual judge is Slakko.

TGW, CotC.

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 13:53:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ackanomic coat of arms

I suggest the senate submit the following design for an Ackanomic coat of
arms to the Herald.  [As far as I can see, this is done as an organizational
action, i.e., publicly.]
 
Per pale sable and barry wavy tenne and purpure, a scale of justice
between a frog and a life-glider, all or.

I approve of this suggestion.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 14:03:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Infrequent Ackan Volume 1 Issue 22

On Sun, 17 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> > The "I'll create my own Party just to be a Swinger award" goes jointly to
> > Slakko, The Gingham Wearer (who both did it) and Koxvolio (who suggested
> > it later).
> 
> I ask Slakko to retract the above statement. Whilst playing party chess was
> one of my reasons for creating a new party it was not the only one.

I retract the part of this statement which says you did it.  I do not
retract the part which gives you the award.

- -- 
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: Sun, 17 May 1998 14:11:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: IRC

Join me on Acka IRC right now.

For those newcomers who have never been to Acka IRC,
it's at wilma.che.utexas.edu port 9942, channel #ackanomic

If you don't have an IRC client, you can use the java client at
http://wilma.che.utexas.edu/~snowgod/

Scams, games & contests, Acka history, any and every subject may
be discussed on Acka IRC, unless forbidden by the rules. :-)

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 14:41:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ackanomic coat of arms

On Sun, 17 May 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

>I suggest the senate submit the following design for an Ackanomic coat of
>arms to the Herald.  [As far as I can see, this is done as an organizational
>action, i.e., publicly.]
> 
>Per pale sable and barry wavy tenne and purpure, a scale of justice
>between a frog and a life-glider, all or.
>
>I approve of this suggestion.

As far as I can tell, the senate isn't an org, but an office with four
seat, thus by posting this, the senate has in fact suggested it and there
is no reason for the other senators to improve.
Therefore, I (as herald) approve this suggestion as a Coat of Arms and

Now, I call for a Hearing (and am Hearing Harfer).

The valid responses are
"The flower of Knighthood would be proud to be caparisoned thusly!"
and
"I'd rather see 'Or, a gorges Purpure!'"

Reply (since I set the address correctly to acka-priv :) to vote.

- --JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to sieze the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #157
*******************************