Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #161
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest         Tuesday, May 19 1998         Volume 03 : Number 161

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 09:50:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: (CnH)Acka: Ackanomic coat of arms 

As far as I can tell this only awaits CnH's approval...

17 May 1998 13:53:38

K 2
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.
>
> /dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 10:35:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Raquel Peres da Silva" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Important actions

I offer the Spellbook, which I believe is in my hands right now, to the
Order of the Razor Boomerangs. I'd rather read it later, after I've been
burnt as the evil witch I seem to be...

Also, I create a trinket named "Doh!", with the following description:
"It's a crimson cubic box. Everytime its owner attempts to do something
stupid, like sending private messages to public foruns, sending public
messages to private addresses, failing to find well-known pages, playing
out of turn in a multi-player game, or any other stupid thing like I have
done lately, the box is opened, and a hand holding a hammer comes from
inside, hits em in the head and goes back inside the box. Then the box is
closed again, until the next Doh! attempt." It's value is A$10 and I give
it to myself.

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

Law of Cat Thermodynamics: Heat flows from a warmer to a cooler body,
except in the case of a cat, when all heat flows to the cat.

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 11:50:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Trinkets

Blarf, what am I doing with all these puny trinkets?
Not to mention the smoking 'frop' pipe which is offensive to
some players.

I destroy the following trinkets for A$, a total of A$87:

Monument to Futility Ticket #3 (worth A$1)
The Smoking 'Frop' Pipe (Worth A$68) 
Lego Appeal (Worth A$7) 
Insert clever name here (Worth A$1) 
Pointy Ears Wins It Again! (Worth A$5) 
You've Gotta Be Kidding Me (Worth A$5) 

I also wonder about some of K2's dates on the P/E page; it says
I've had the ACK since 8/9/01 and been ackaphysicist since 5/9/02.
Justice since 17/5/98 isn't right either [happened in early April,
I believe; certainly not 2 days ago].  I believe the Machine is right,
though, [since 8/5/98], assuming that backward date convention used in
some parts of the world outside the United States. :-)

/dev/joe
Swinger since 2/1/03

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 12:28:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: (CnH)Acka: Ackanomic coat of arms 

On Tue, 19 May 1998, K2 wrote:

> As far as I can tell this only awaits CnH's approval...
> 
> 17 May 1998 13:53:38
> 
> K 2
> 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.
> >
> > /dev/joe
> 
Don't forget me.

I can't say I'm especially fond of this coat of arms, but its not like I
can come up with anything better.  I approve it.

                               - Senator Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 13:03:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Important actions

> Also, I create a trinket named "Doh!", with the following description:

I may just be hallucinating but didn't rufus have a trinket called doh at
some point?

TGW.

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 13:03:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Someone call a CSSR

> "The butler may then not be used until a period of rime equal to twice the
> time it was performing this duty has passed."      ^^^^
> 
>  That word should read "time".

You are of course correct, as was Alfvaen when he pointed this out before.
There really is no need for a CSR though, especially considering this
proposal hasn't yet been accepted. If it is accepted then it won't matter
since rule 340 glosses over the spelling mistake. If it is accepted *then*
either the spelling bee or a CSR could deal with it.

TGW, CSR (and fond of TLAs).

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 13:03:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Justices, appeals and what have you

> I believe Alfvaen is correct.  This justice seat was filled because
> Breadbox exercised his R417 (Justices Rock) privilege to not have to
> judge this CFJ, and R417 says the replacement justice is selected as
> if that justice went on vacation.  So, the seat is filled by R416,
> which takes precedence over R425.  R416 requires the acting justice
> to be chosen among non-vacationing justices not in that cortex, and I
> have been a non-vacationing Justice since CFJ580 was appealed, so
> either I should have been chosen, or a random choice should have been
> made between me and Malenkai/saaremaa in the thread where he is a
> Justice, and I should have been chosen in the other thread.
> 
> I will work on a proposal to fix up all the assorted inconsistencies
> left in the Justice/Praetor rules because of that Cortex proposal.

No problem. /dev/joe has been selected.

TGW.

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 13:34:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Harf

I finally found the time to go through the proposal again and do that
voting thing.  Wouldntcha know it, some of those darn things were harfy
and almost slipped through unrecognized.  Proposal 3037 for example!  And
Proposal 3079!

                                   - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 14:36:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 164 (Alfvaen)

Illusion has gone deadbeat which means that this goes to our Praetor, Alfvaen
(and yes, I have remembered this time!).

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Criminal Judgment 164 (May 09)
Subject: Malpractice
Initiator: The Gingham Wearer (sent May 09, 1998, 14:41)
Judge: Illusion (selected May 09, 1998, 14:43) (deadbeat)
Second Judge: Alfvaen
Judgement: 

Statement:
The Gingham Wearer committed the Crime of Malpractice on 04th May 1998.

Initiator's Reasoning:
I went deadbeat on a CFCJ which then caused me to lose the purple robe of
justice. I then selected myself for two subsequent CFJs believing that I had
thrice the probability of being selected as anyone else and weighted my
random selection thusly. Clearly this was not performing the duties of my
office correctly. I plead guilty as charged.

Suggested penalty:
A gaol sentence of 75 days.
A public apology of 40000 lines.
A fine of A$7000
A deduction of 3000000 points.

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 14:36:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 592 (Hubert)

Rex Mundi has declined. Hubert has been selected.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 592- May 12, 1998
Subject: Chess
Initiator: J.M. Bear (sent May 12, 1998, 11:09)
Judge: Rex Mundi (selected May 13, 1998, 17:44) (declined)
Second Judge: Hubert
Judgement: 

Statement:
When a winner of a game of Party Chess is declared by
Rule 1230.40, the current game of Party Chess ends, and
a new game of Party Chess begins.

Initiator's Reasoning:
Although Party Chess has no official game counter,
the title "Winner of a game of Party Chess" expresses that the
game of Party Chess ended. Since playing Party Chess goes
on, a new game of Party Chess has begun. The game of Party
Chess which is an unownable entity probably includes all of
Party Chess.

The rules may need a change to further clarify this, but if one
plays and wins a game of Monopoly, this doesn't change the
ownership of the game hardware, or the copyright. Likewise,
anything which suggests that more than one game of Party
Chess exists, refers to the gameplay between two consecutive
Winner declarations by Rule 1230.40, not to the entity itself
protecting rules, game state and gameplay.

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 14:36:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 595 (TRUE)

Hubert has judged TRUE without reasoning.

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: TRUE

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.

/dev/joe's Bronze Torch Reasoning:
I agree with the initiator that the scam failed, but I disagree on the
reason.
I believe his reasoning is faulty, and that if the item got on the
dispensation list it could be executed as was attempted.  However, I do not
believe the item made it onto the Dispensation list.

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."
in Rule 101 prevents this addition to the Dispensation list from occurring.

Judge's Reasoning:
[None]

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 14:36:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 594 (TRUE)

Slakko has judged this TRUE.

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

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.

Judge's Reasoning:

  The rules only describe players as witches in two instances.  The first
of these is in rule 1307, where players are referred to as "alleged
witches" when they have a Witchhunt called against them, and "witches"
when the verdict of the witchhunt is against them.
  Rule 1307.1 refers to Witchhunts being conducted in the same manner.

  Either way, the rules only refer to players as witches when a Witchhunt
has returned a verdict of "BURN THE WITCH!" against them.  For this to
have taken place, they must either have referred to the earth being round,
or contradicted the fact that black is a color.  The first of these two
acts is Heresy, the second is Black Heresy.

  Nothing in the rules defines when a player actually qualifies as a
Heretic.  Some rules refer to players being "burned as a Heretic", but
that does not automatically imply that they are, in fact, Heretics (they
could have been burnt mistakenly, after all).  So I will go by the English
definition - a heretic is someone who commits heresy.  As to be called a
witch you must have committed Heresy or Black Heresy, to be a witch you
must already be a Heretic.

  Thus all witches are Heretics.  Hence the statement is TRUE.

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 14:36:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 593 (FALSE)

J.M. Bear has judged this FALSE.

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: FALSE

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.

Now, Rule 340 also states:

  V. Text in rules other than this one, delimited by double curly braces
  {{e.g. this}}, is self-deleting text.

So any double-brace-enclosed text in Rule 340 is _not_ self-deleting,
_including that added by Proposal 2938_.

Now what we have is a Rule which states, at the end:

{{The Gingham Wearer loses two points. Alfvaen gains two points. [He
reminded me about the need to do this.]}}

What happens when a Rule states that a player gain two points,
unconditionally?  Does it mean that those two points are gained only
once, and then never again?  Let's take this in stages.

If a rule states "Alfvaen gains two points whenever a harfy Proposal
passes", does it mean that those two points are gained when the harfy
Proposal passes, and then taken away when it is not the case that a
harfy Proposal is passing?  I don't think anyone would take that point
of view.  Think of it instead the following block of pseudocode:

If (harfy proposal passes) then
   Alfvaen's score = Alfvaen's score + 2

In general, we can think of "Alfvaen gains two points when CONDITION"
as being

If (CONDITION) then
   Alfvaen's score = Alfvaen's score + 2

So what does it mean when CONDITION is missing?  Well, what is the
difference between "I have wet hair" and "I have wet hair when it is
raining"?  In the first case, the condition is _always true_.  The
first sentence is equivalent to "I have wet hair when 1=1", or any
other tautology.  Therefore, "Alfvaen gains two points" means
"Alfvaen gains two points when 1=1", or

If (1=1) then
   Alfvaen's score = Alfvaen's score + 2

But how often is this conditional evaluated?  I would hold that it happens
an infinite number of times per second, because one can, for instance,
undertake two actions at the same time(in the same message), both of which
yield points, possible from the same Rule.

Therefore, since the passage of Proposal 2938, I have been gaining two
points an infinite number of times per second, so my score can no longer
be expressed without using Aleph notation.  Obviously, Aleph-null is
greater than 419, so my score exceeds the Magic Number, and I have
attained a Winning Condition.

(The Gingham Wearer's score, meanwhile, is continually cycling through all
the even numbers between 20 and -60...)

I promise that if I win the Cycle through this means, I will donate
the infinite amount of money I receive at the end of the Cycle back to
the Treasury.  :-)

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.

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 14:36:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 584 (FALSE (upheld))

This has upheld as FALSE by mutual consent between /dev/joe, saaremaa and
ThinMan (i.e. in any of the threads).

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 584- May 04, 1998
Subject: Malenkai
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent May 03, 1998, 22:37)
Judge: The Gingham Wearer (selected May 04, 1998, 11:10)
Judgement: FALSE
Repealed by: saaremaa
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:
There is currently a player with the Ackanomic name "Malenkai".

Alfvaen's Reasoning:
The Gingham Wearer and Slakko seem to be persuaded of this, so let me
see if I can support their conclusion.

Malenkai posted the following message:

"I exist as described in Rule 252.

The following strings exist in this message as described by Rule 252:
saaremaa
Randy Hall
[email-masked]

saaremaa
Speaker Emeritus
and little else :-)
who is oh so glad e used a treasure"

Rule 252, "Joining the Game", states, on the subject of Returning players:

   I. For the purposes of this rule, a player whose most recent departure
   from Ackanomic caused him or her to become an Undead that still exists
   is considered a Returning player. All other players are considered
   New.

Rule 250, "Registered Players", states:
   No matter how many times a person legally registers as a player in
   Ackanomic, that person is always considered the same player. [That is,
   if a player quits and later rejoins, he is considered the same
   player.]

  Therefore it is indisputable, barring questions of email-address
  identity, that Randy Hall is the same player known as Malenkai.
  And thus e is eligible to become a Returning player.  (Though e is
  not a Returning player until e is once again a player.)

Back to Rule 252:
   IV. A person able to join the game as a Returning player may do so by
   posting a public message to that effect. This message must include
   their Ackanomic and real life names, as well as a valid email address.
   The Registrar shall then record their return to the players list.

The ambiguity here is in the meaning of what "their" Ackanomic name is.
So let's look at Rule 251, "Player Names":

   Every player has exactly one Ackanomic name. This name must be a
   string of name characters from two to twenty characters in length.
   Neither the first nor the last character in this string may be the
   space character. All official nomic business shall use this name to
   refer to that player.

   A player may change his Ackanomic name, so long as the new name
   complies with all applicable rules. The Registrar shall record and
   acknowledge each legal name change; a legal name change takes effect
   at the time of the Registrar's acknowledgement, at which time the
   player in question shall pay the standard Harfer Fee. When a player
   changes their Ackanomic name, all Ackanomic business will be changed
   to follow their new name.

Now, is Randy Hall a player?  To return to Rule 250:
   A player is any person who is registered as a player. Players are
   named, unownable entities. No person may register as a player more
   than once concurrently. Anyone is allowed to observe the game and
   participate in discussion of any issue, but no person who is not a
   player may make a proposal, or vote on any proposal, or call for
   judgement, or judge, or score points, or win a cycle. No person who is
   not a player may hold office or have any tasks, duties or
   responsibilities within the game.

After Randy Hall left the game, e was not a player, but an Undead.  This
state of affairs holds until Randy Hall is once again a registered player.
The Rules are silent on the issue of Ackanomic names of non-player
entities, except that by Rule 348, " ":

   No named entity may have a name that matches a former name of any
   current or former player, except that a player may change his name to
   match one that he previously held.

   This Rule defers to other Rules on the matter of whether it is
   permissible for a returning Player to choose, as eir Ackanomic name,
   the same name as an Undead.

I note that it does not seem to be possible for an Undead to possess an
Ackanomic name which matches that of a former player, since Rule 258,
"Undead", is silent on the subject, and Rule 348 makes no special
provisions.  So it appears that in the following section of Rule 252:

   V. Upon the registration of a Returning player, the following
   procedure takes place:

   1) The Undead with that player's Ackanomic name changes from an Undead
   to a player.

This does not work, since it is patently illegal for an Undead with any
player's Ackanomic name to exist.

My conclusion, then, is that it may or may not have been possible for Randy
Hall to have joined under the Ackanomic name "saaremaa" as opposed to eir
former Ackanomic name of "Malenkai".  I find it also highly likely that
despite eir own assertion, saaremaa(or Malenkai) is not Speaker Emeritus,
this being a title bestowed upon a Undead named "Nameless Thing #N" for
some integer N that, as Undead-Harfer, I really don't feel like working
out right now.

Judge's Reasoning:
Rule 256 has this (amongst other things) to say about what happens when a
player leaves the game:

"7) The player ceases to be a player and becomes an Undead. "

I don't think that anyone disputes the fact that Randy Hall (then Malenkai)
previously left the game (in fact I seem to recall numerous CFJs on the
matter without any well defined CotC, which wasn't pretty) and so according
to this rule the player Malenkai should have become an undead. 

Rule 348, however, states this:

"No named entity may have a name that matches a former name of any current or
former player, except that a player may change his name to match one that he
previously held."

Since rule 258 states:

"There exists the class of named, unownable entities known as the Undead."

we seem to have a problem. Since the rule for leaving the game doesn't detail
any name change then we must presume that the undead would still be called
Malenkai. This is where our first problem arises.

Back to rule 348:

"An attempt to do anything that requires a name to be chosen [such as
creating a Trinket or Organization] fails if the chosen name matches a name
already in use."

I note that this specifies only when a name *is chosen*, so rule 256 succeeds
in creating the undead since no names change and neither rule 348 nor 256 has
anything to say about precedence. The undead Malenkai existed, albeit
illegally. (It has been ruled before illegal things such as this can happen,
Malenkai being Justice and Senator and Vulcan owning a scroll of crumble for
example).

That brings us on to rule 252:

"I. For the purposes of this rule, a player whose most recent departure from
Ackanomic caused him or her to become an Undead that still exists is
considered a Returning player. All other players are considered New. "

Since Malenkai was inducted into the hall of elders his undead will not
decompose and therefore still exists hence Randy Hall would seem to have been
a returning player.

However, rule 250 states:

"A player is any person who is registered as a player."

I believe we therefore have a problem. Nobody can be considered a returning
player because of the unfortunate use of the word player instead of person
(Randy Hall was not "a player whose most recent departure from Ackanomic
caused him or her to become an Undead that still exists" because he was not a
player).

Since Alfvaen (the Registrar) has not posted a public message announcing
Randy Hall as a new player (which is the procedure necessary for a New player
joining the game) the only conclusion I can reach is that Randy Hall is not a
player in Ackanomic at all. This brings with it the problem that his
proposals were never submitted and the appeal of the CFJ he made never
happened. Such is life, I'm afraid.

Appealer's Comments:
[None]

Supreme Court's Comments:
It is agreed that the undead created when Malenkai left the game already
had the name Malenkai, and thus there was no naming step for R348 to
trigger on, so the undead had the name Malenkai despite it being illegal
for it to do so.

TGW wrote, referring to R252 section I:
>There are no circumstances where anyone can both be a player and have an
>undead that still exists. Therefore nobody can be a Returning player. Player
>is specifically defined by the rules so I don't think that interpreting it
to
>mean person can be done.

In the circumstances in which saaremaa joined the game, it is possible
for someone to be a player and have an undead that still exists.  Read
on for an explanation why this actually happened in this case, and
in a way happens in every case.

So now, we look back to (what was then) R252 to see how he can do it:
>  IV. A person able to join the game as a Returning player may do so by
>  posting a public message to that effect. This message must include
>  their Ackanomic and real life names, as well as a valid email address.
>  The Registrar shall then record their return to the players list.

Again, we must interpret "their Ackanomic [name]" to mean the name he
wishes to join under, since before he joins he has no Ackanomic name.
We have allowed far too many players to return to the game for this
to *not* be game custom; we even allowed Atilla the Pun to rejoin as
Attila the Pun!  

Also note that he may join the game as a returning player, merely by
sending this message!  Section V (quoted below) doesn't make the player
wait until this stuff happens before he can become a player.
Therefore, Randy Hall joined as a returning player named saaremaa.

Now, then, the other important part:

>V. Upon the registration of a Returning player, the following procedure
>takes place:
>
>1) The Undead with the Ackanomic name provided by the person who is
>returning to the game changes from an Undead to a player.

No Undead had the name saaremaa, so this step failed.  Therefore, the
Undead Malenkai still existed after this, while player saaremaa also
existed.  Regardless, saaremaa got his possessions back from the Undead
Malenkai in P2988.

Also note that in every case of a returning player joining the game,
for an instant between the time he sends his returning message and the
time the above section V procedure is carried out, both the player and
the Undead exist.

It has been game custom for a long time that section V.1 does what it is
supposed to -- that is, it turns the undead into the same player who just
registered, rather than another player with the same name.  In this case,
we have two interpretations which both seem farfetched in different ways,
so it seems reasonable to me to keep using the one which we have clearly
been using for quite some time, the game's customary interpretation.

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 14:52:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Frank Schmidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 593 (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.

Oh my! The first point arrived garbled, the second not at all. What
have I done wrong this time?
JMB

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 15:28:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Micah Smukler)
Subject: Acka: Vacation

I return from vacation.

I apologize to all the participants in games which I in some way
held up by being on vacation.

[I offer to trade someone A$1000 for a Rock to Wind a String Around.

THE EARTH IS ROUND!!! BLACK IS NOT A COLOR!!!]

AtP

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 15:47:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Vacation

Attila the Pun wrote:
> [I offer to trade someone A$1000 for a Rock to Wind a String Around.

I accept Attila the Pun's A$1000 for one of my Rocks to Wind a String Around.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 17:14:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Witch hunt (was: Re: Acka: Vacation)

> [I offer to trade someone A$1000 for a Rock to Wind a String Around.
> 
> THE EARTH IS ROUND!!! BLACK IS NOT A COLOR!!!]

I am calling a witch hunt against Attila the Pun for the above quoted
comments. I am the hearing harfer for this. Valid responses are:

Burn the witch!
No, e said the earth was flat.

You may reply to vote.

Now that the official type stuff is done I'll note that IIRC the CFJ as to
whether this happens or not is still under appeal. Come on people, don't let
AtP get away with these heretical comments, even if they were in notes
brackets.

TGW.

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 21:18:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Yet Another Stupid CSR

The following is the text of CSR 140, and will be enacted in three
days unless there are two or more public objections:

Renumber Rule 3048 ("Feuds") to 1216. [Please vote for Proposal 3061.]

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 21:55:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Reminders

I would like to note that UglyBigNose has less than an hour to post Phoebe's
wisdom(and eir chances of becoming even a Crazy Frenchman ran out a few
days ago).

Also, Koxvolio has about 20.5 hours remaining in eir YORL turn.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Bob Geldof:The Vegetarians of Love
Current Book--Michael Coney:Cat Karina
She criticized my apartment, so I knocked her flat.

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 23:00:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Important actions

On Tue, 19 May 1998, Raquel Peres da Silva wrote:

>I offer the Spellbook, which I believe is in my hands right now, to the
>Order of the Razor Boomerangs. I'd rather read it later, after I've been
>burnt as the evil witch I seem to be...

I suggest that the Order of Razor Boomerangs accept the spellbook from
Ayla.  I also approve of this suggestion.  (Hubert, Ayla, Joe Java
you still need to approve this)

- --JT

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

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #161
*******************************