Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #173
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest         Tuesday, June 9 1998         Volume 03 : Number 173

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 02:27:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Up, Up, and Awry

On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
>I create a trinket called "My first A$7" with the following description:
>It looks like a seven Ackadollar bill in a frame with a caption under it
>reading "The first A$7 received by Dennis and Edna's Spell Book Reading
>Service, paid by 867-5309 (Jenny) on June 8, 1998, in exchange for turning
>page 5 of his spell book into a silver spaceship."

Unfortunately, you didn't specify the value of the trinket Dennis and
Edna, so the trinket was not created.

- --JT

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 02:40:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 166 (TRUE)

Slakko has judged this TRUE, however believes this to be a CFJ instead of
a CFCJ.

- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Criminal Judgement 166 - June 7, 1998
Subject: Mu-Cow Hunter, Crime of Disinterest
Initiator: Saaremaa (sent June 7, 21:10)
Judge: Thin Man (selected June 8, 00:48) - Incorrectly selected by ACotC
Judge: Slakko (selected June 8, 10:21)
Verdict: TRUE

Statement:
The Mu-Cow Hunter committed the Crime of Disinterest on June 7th, 1998.

Initiator's Comments:
See rule 422; the rules no longer allow the Mu-Cow Hunter
to get away with not being subscribed to a mailing list.
Lets clean it out.

Suggested Penalty:
EXPULSION from the game.

Judge's Reasoning:
There is no email address listed as being that of the Mu-Cow Hunter on any
of the Registrar Pages, and the Mu-Cow Hunter never provided the Registrar
with an email on eir entry to the game.  Therefore, no email address
belonging to the Mu-Cow Hunter exists, and so no email address belonging
to the Mu-Cow Hunter is on the ackanomic or ackanomic-digest lists.
Therefore e was Disinterested on June 7th, 1998, and committed the Crime
of Disinterest on that date.

However, the CFJ was sent on the same day the alleged Crime took place.
This means it cannot be a CFCJ, as Rule 710 specifies that:

>3) Its "statement" shall be "X committed the Crime of Y on Z", where X is
>replaced with the name of a registered player, Y is replaced by the
>name of a Crime as defined in the current ruleset, and Z is replaced by a
>date between 1 and 30 days prior to the current date. 

Hence the above TRUE judgement is actually on a CFJ, not a CFCJ.

Judges Penalty:
If it is legal for me to suggest a penalty, then I concur with the
suggestion of EXPULSION from the game.
However, I belive that the nature of the statement, which means this
cannot be a CFCJ, means that I am unable to hand down a penalty.

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 02:42:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 167 (TRUE)

867-5309 has judged this TRUE with no reasoning provided.

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Criminal Judgement 167 - June 8, 1998
Subject: Mu-Cow Hunter, Crime of Blatant Disregard
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent June 7, 21:52)
Judge: 867-5309 (selected June 8, 00:49)
Verdict: True

Statement:
The Mu-Cow Hunter committed the Crime of Blatant Disregard on June 7, 1998.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:
Rule 250, "Registered Players", states that "A player is any person who is
registered as a player."  Well, the Mu-Cow Hunter is not a person, and the
clause of the Rules which may have allowed this to pass was repealed by
Proposal 3158 on June 7(23:57 EDT, so just barely).  So obviously the Mu-Cow
Hunter, by being a player but not being a _person_, has violated Rule 250.

Suggested Punishment:
EXPULSION from the game of Ackanomic.

Judges Reasoning:
Judge claimed no reasoning was necessary.

Actual Penalty:
DEDUCTION of 1000000 points from the Mu-Cow Hunter's Score.
EXPULSION from the game.

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 04:02:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Ian K." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Foobar.

> > Wild Card tried to hide after 100 lines on blank space:
> > > I purchase 12 kaas of land at 1A$ each...
> > 
> > No, no, the senate forbids it! (well, so far only I do, but the
> > others should speak up too, soon)
> > 
>  Grrr...  I was hoping that you wouldn't notice...

I'm well impressed, both by the attempt and by someone noticing it!

Koxvolio

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 06:21:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Ian K." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Diversifying

I would like to join the Church of Banna, to learn the art of amber and
the true shape of the world, perhaps...

Koxvolio

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 08:11:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Diversifying

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Ian K. wrote:

> 
> I would like to join the Church of Banna, to learn the art of amber and
> the true shape of the world, perhaps...

I accept Koxvolio into the Church of banna.

rufus
Founder of the Church of banna.

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 09:16:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 166 (TRUE)

> Slakko has judged this TRUE, however believes this to be a CFJ instead of
> a CFCJ.

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Criminal Judgement 166 - June 7, 1998
> Subject: Mu-Cow Hunter, Crime of Disinterest
> Initiator: Saaremaa (sent June 7, 21:10)
> Judge: Thin Man (selected June 8, 00:48) - Incorrectly selected by ACotC
> Judge: Slakko (selected June 8, 10:21)
> Verdict: TRUE

> However, the CFJ was sent on the same day the alleged Crime took place.
> This means it cannot be a CFCJ, as Rule 710 specifies that:

> >3) Its "statement" shall be "X committed the Crime of Y on Z", where X is
> >replaced with the name of a registered player, Y is replaced by the
> >name of a Crime as defined in the current ruleset, and Z is replaced by a
> >date between 1 and 30 days prior to the current date. 

I would like to point out that the times listed in the header are likely in
PDT rather than Ackatime, and the CFJ was thus sent out at 00:10 EDT on June
8th, which is one calendar day later than June 7th.  (I know, because mine
was listed as 21:52, and I _know_ I sent it out later than Proposal 3158(?)
passed, which was at 23:57 EDT June 7th...at least with the correct voting
results.)

And since "date" is used in Rule 710, I'm sure that even 00:01 EDT June 8th
would be considered to have June 7th "one day prior to the current date".

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Amanda Marshall:Birmingham
Current Book--Lois McMaster Bujold:Ethan of Athos
When the boss is not around we know a lot of songs.

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 12:30:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 166 (TRUE)

> I would like to point out that the times listed in the header are likely in
> PDT rather than Ackatime, and the CFJ was thus sent out at 00:10 EDT on June
> 8th, which is one calendar day later than June 7th.  (I know, because mine
> was listed as 21:52, and I _know_ I sent it out later than Proposal 3158(?)
> passed, which was at 23:57 EDT June 7th...at least with the correct voting
> results.)
> 
> And since "date" is used in Rule 710, I'm sure that even 00:01 EDT June 8th
> would be considered to have June 7th "one day prior to the current date".

Sigh.  It was sent after midnight on the 8th.

I appeal it to set the record straight, and decline to hear the appeal
as described in the rules.  Perhaps the original judge can explain how
e thought it was submitted at 21:10, when the proposal results were
distributed 23: something :-)  If the Court cares, I can forward it from
my sent folder...

saaremaa

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 12:37:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 166 (TRUE)

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Randy Hall wrote:

>> I would like to point out that the times listed in the header are likely in
>> PDT rather than Ackatime, and the CFJ was thus sent out at 00:10 EDT on June
>> 8th, which is one calendar day later than June 7th.  (I know, because mine
>> was listed as 21:52, and I _know_ I sent it out later than Proposal 3158(?)
>> passed, which was at 23:57 EDT June 7th...at least with the correct voting
>> results.)
>> 
>> And since "date" is used in Rule 710, I'm sure that even 00:01 EDT June 8th
>> would be considered to have June 7th "one day prior to the current date".
>
>Sigh.  It was sent after midnight on the 8th.
>
>I appeal it to set the record straight, and decline to hear the appeal
>as described in the rules.  Perhaps the original judge can explain how
>e thought it was submitted at 21:10, when the proposal results were
>distributed 23: something :-)  If the Court cares, I can forward it from
>my sent folder...

If there is an error on the timestamp, it is mine, not slakkos.  I had
*thought* that I got the timestamp corrected to Acka time, but.....
I apparently did *NOT* add the requisite three hours to the time stamps
to translate to Acka time and thus the time stamps were wrong.

I donate A$1 to the Twits, and ask rufus to thwap me solidly with the
D'oh!.

- --JT

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 12:37:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 166 (TRUE)

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Randy Hall wrote:

> > I would like to point out that the times listed in the header are likely in
> > PDT rather than Ackatime, and the CFJ was thus sent out at 00:10 EDT on June
> > 8th, which is one calendar day later than June 7th.  (I know, because mine
> > was listed as 21:52, and I _know_ I sent it out later than Proposal 3158(?)
> > passed, which was at 23:57 EDT June 7th...at least with the correct voting
> > results.)
> > 
> > And since "date" is used in Rule 710, I'm sure that even 00:01 EDT June 8th
> > would be considered to have June 7th "one day prior to the current date".
> 
> Sigh.  It was sent after midnight on the 8th.
> 
> I appeal it to set the record straight, and decline to hear the appeal
> as described in the rules.  Perhaps the original judge can explain how
> e thought it was submitted at 21:10, when the proposal results were
> distributed 23: something :-)  If the Court cares, I can forward it from
> my sent folder...

Does this mean JT has committed Malpractice by neglecting to put the
correct time in the CFCJ headers?  After all, Rule 380 specifies that
dates are according to NYC time - in which case e specified the date
wrongly on at least one part of the message.

I simply relied on the CotC getting it right.
- -- 
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, 09 Jun 1998 12:40:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFCJ 166 (TRUE)

Speaking of giving money to the Twits, I do believe I gave MTM the
requisite A$1 after my appalling stupid method of disqualifying myself
from the Hubert treasure.

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	JT [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent:	Tuesday, June 09, 1998 11:37 AM
>To:	[email-masked]
>Subject:	Re: Acka: CFCJ 166 (TRUE)
>
>
>I donate A$1 to the Twits, and ask rufus to thwap me solidly with the
>D'oh!.
>
>--JT
>
>[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
>[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
>[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
>[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
>
>

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 13:10:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 166 (TRUE)

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Randy Hall wrote:
>> > I would like to point out that the times listed in the header are likely in
>> > PDT rather than Ackatime, and the CFJ was thus sent out at 00:10 EDT on June
>> > 8th, which is one calendar day later than June 7th.  (I know, because mine
>> > was listed as 21:52, and I _know_ I sent it out later than Proposal 3158(?)
>> > passed, which was at 23:57 EDT June 7th...at least with the correct voting
>> > results.)
>> > 
>> > And since "date" is used in Rule 710, I'm sure that even 00:01 EDT June 8th
>> > would be considered to have June 7th "one day prior to the current date".
>> 
>> Sigh.  It was sent after midnight on the 8th.
>> 
>> I appeal it to set the record straight, and decline to hear the appeal
>> as described in the rules.  Perhaps the original judge can explain how
>> e thought it was submitted at 21:10, when the proposal results were
>> distributed 23: something :-)  If the Court cares, I can forward it from
>> my sent folder...
>
>Does this mean JT has committed Malpractice by neglecting to put the
>correct time in the CFCJ headers?  After all, Rule 380 specifies that
>dates are according to NYC time - in which case e specified the date
>wrongly on at least one part of the message.

>I simply relied on the CotC getting it right.
>-- 
>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
>

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 13:18:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 166 (TRUE)

> Does this mean JT has committed Malpractice by neglecting to put the
> correct time in the CFCJ headers?  After all, Rule 380 specifies that
> dates are according to NYC time - in which case e specified the date
> wrongly on at least one part of the message.

I'm not sure why we are so nit-picky about this sort of thing,
both in judging the CFCJ in the nit-pickiest way without exploring
the facts, then jumping to accuse the CotC of malpractice for a simple
mistake, while we completly ignore rule 373 for example, or allow people
to go on vacation or leave the game via methods not described in the
rules.

I am not advocating either attitude, but in nomic would advocate 
*consistency* on the looseness/strictness with which we do things...
It is more fun to play on a consistent playing field.

saaremaa

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 13:34:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 166 (TRUE)

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Randy Hall wrote:

> > Does this mean JT has committed Malpractice by neglecting to put the
> > correct time in the CFCJ headers?  After all, Rule 380 specifies that
> > dates are according to NYC time - in which case e specified the date
> > wrongly on at least one part of the message.
> 
> I'm not sure why we are so nit-picky about this sort of thing,
> both in judging the CFCJ in the nit-pickiest way without exploring
> the facts, then jumping to accuse the CotC of malpractice for a simple
> mistake, while we completly ignore rule 373 for example, or allow people
> to go on vacation or leave the game via methods not described in the
> rules.
> 
> I am not advocating either attitude, but in nomic would advocate 
> *consistency* on the looseness/strictness with which we do things...
> It is more fun to play on a consistent playing field.

People commit Crimes in Acka all of the time.  We just don't charge them
for it most of the time.  I have no intention of submitting a CFCJ
charging JT with Malpractice.  That seems fairly consistent with our lax
attitude in other areas.
- -- 
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, 09 Jun 1998 13:40:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ appeal cortex selection

Can anyone tell me which cortexes currently exist?  Slakko's machine
(where I'd normally search for this information) is currently not
answering to http requests, so I cannot find it.

- --JT

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 13:40:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: more Cortex selection questions

Okay.  I have a) no idea of exactly which cortices exist which was my
previous question.

Aside from that, selection of a cortex requires knowing how many CFJ's are
currently under consideration by each cortex, information that I also
don't have.

I also didn't see any way for a cortex to decline judgement on an appeal
as saaremaa attempted to do, but I'd be happy if someone else could point
that out to me, since I freely admit that I don't have the rules
memorized, and grepping doesn't always find the relevant passage.

- --JT

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 13:40:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 611 (Nicollo Flychuck)

Nicollo Flychuck has been selected.

- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Judgement 611 - June 9, 1998
Subject: CFJ vs CFCJ
Initiator: Slakko (June 9th, 03:21 Acka)
Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (Selected June 9th, 12:50 Acka)

Statement:
The statements which have been distributed by JT labelled as CFCJ 166 and
CFCJ 167 are not, in fact, CFCJs.

Slakko's Reasoning:
Both of these so-called CFCJs violated Rule 710, as they attempted to
convict someone of a Crime on the day they committed it.  Rule 710
specifies that the date listed on the CFCJ must be between 1 and 30 days
prior to the current date.

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 13:45:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 166 (TRUE)

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

>On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Randy Hall wrote:
>> I'm not sure why we are so nit-picky about this sort of thing,
>> both in judging the CFCJ in the nit-pickiest way without exploring
>> the facts, then jumping to accuse the CotC of malpractice for a simple
>> mistake, while we completly ignore rule 373 for example, or allow people
>> to go on vacation or leave the game via methods not described in the
>> rules.
>> 
>> I am not advocating either attitude, but in nomic would advocate 
>> *consistency* on the looseness/strictness with which we do things...
>> It is more fun to play on a consistent playing field.
>
>People commit Crimes in Acka all of the time.  We just don't charge them
>for it most of the time.  I have no intention of submitting a CFCJ
>charging JT with Malpractice.  That seems fairly consistent with our lax
>attitude in other areas.

First, two apologies, one for getting the date wrong initially (which I
did do and which I admitted to in another piece of mail that has gotten
hel up in my mail-spool somewhere), second for the previous mail which
quotes Slakko's mail but fails to add any comments.  I'd intended to
reply, someone at work interrupted me, and I accidentally hit the send
instead of the cancel button on the mail.
(cntrol-x and control-c in pine are right next to each other and one slip
is nasty :/)

I probably am guilty of some crime or another for misrepresenting the time
on the cfcj and for it, I humbly apologize and if someone does submit a
CFCJ, well, that's their right.  I have corrected the times on the copies
of the CFCJs that I  have on disk, and that will be reflected on the
appeal of CFCJ 166 when I find the information I need in order to assign
it according to the rules.

- --JT

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 13:48:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Dancing

I go to The Town Hall.

I pay Pandora (the First Citizen) A$2 for an Exhibitionist's Permit.

I dance on the Town Hall Steps.
I am wearing a Wool Sweater, so I am not naked.
I describe the dance thusly:

I want to wait before I win this game
So to the Hall for me to say this line
And while my motives may not be the same
As yours, I guess this message must be mine.
A dance I danced to guarantee this Hat
For TRUE is what its logic state should be
I turned around and waltzed to this and that
And trilled upon my flute a melody.
I foxtrot, samba, rumba to my core
'Til zero energy I have retained
A horde of Harfers try to tell me "More!"
Alas by now my spirit's strength has waned.
I hope this dance Description you can take
I soft-shoe off to leave you in my wake.

I go to my home.
- -- 
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, 09 Jun 1998 14:07:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: more Cortex selection questions

JT wrote:
>I also didn't see any way for a cortex to decline judgement on an appeal
>as saaremaa attempted to do, but I'd be happy if someone else could point
>that out to me, since I freely admit that I don't have the rules
>memorized, and grepping doesn't always find the relevant passage.

I believe you mistook saarema.  It was not his Cortex which declined to
judge, it was _him_.  This is necessary when a Justice appeals a CFJ.
If his Cortex is selected, or if the CFJ is appealed again, then an
acting Justice will be assigned to that appeal as if saarema were on
vacation.  Check the rules for appealing CFJs.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 14:07:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: more Cortex selection questions

> Okay.  I have a) no idea of exactly which cortices exist which was my
> previous question.

The Entity Formerly Known as the Supreme Court, justices ThinMan and breadbox
Tweedledum and Tweedledee, justice Dennis and Edna (Undermanned)
The cortex of the golden frog, justices saaremaa and MTM (vacationing)
I thought Vynd made himself a justice but I can't find any record of it.

> Aside from that, selection of a cortex requires knowing how many CFJ's are
> currently under consideration by each cortex, information that I also
> don't have.

TEFKAT Supreme Court has CFCJ162, CFJ583, CFJ575, CFJ587, CFJ 591.
I believe no other cortex has any.

> I also didn't see any way for a cortex to decline judgement on an appeal
> as saaremaa attempted to do, but I'd be happy if someone else could point
> that out to me, since I freely admit that I don't have the rules
> memorized, and grepping doesn't always find the relevant passage.

This is in R417, "Justices Rock", at the end.  "When a CFJ is assigned to
the Supreme Cortex that a Justice or Acting Justice owns, that Justice or
Acting Justice may, as a public action, decline Judgment on that CFJ. In
this case, an Acting Justice is selected to act as an owner of that
Supreme Cortex with respect to that CFJ only, in the original Justice's or
Acting Justice's stead; the procedure used to select the Acting Justice is
in this case the same as if the original Justice or Acting Justice had gone
on Vacation."

Also related is R217, "Overturning Judgements", which states "Supreme Court
Justices or Acting Supreme Court Justices may not appeal Judgements or
Supreme Court appellate decisions to the Supreme Court unless they also
exercise their option under rule 417 (Justices Rock) to decline judgement
on that CFJ."

I believe the rules require this CFJ to go to the cortex of the golden frog,
but you then need to choose a justice among me, ThinMan, and breadbox
to fill in for vacationing MTM and another justice among those to fill in
for declining saaremaa.

Dennis and Edna

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 14:09:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: more Cortex selection questions

> Okay.  I have a) no idea of exactly which cortices exist which was my
> previous question.

It is my *guess* that the only fully-manned cortex which I am not 
a member is breadbox/ThinMan.  I believe Guy Fawkes was impeached,
leaving T&T half-manned, and no one has been selected for the
(alledegly) vacationing MTM.

> Aside from that, selection of a cortex requires knowing how many CFJ's are
> currently under consideration by each cortex, information that I also
> don't have.

Since I think there is exactly one cortex, that doesn't matter.
 
> I also didn't see any way for a cortex to decline judgement on an appeal
> as saaremaa attempted to do, but I'd be happy if someone else could point
> that out to me, since I freely admit that I don't have the rules
> memorized, and grepping doesn't always find the relevant passage.

grep for "Justices Rock", I believe.

saaremaa

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 14:27:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Justice filling in for the vacationing Mr. Tambourine Man

I believe that as CotC, this has to be done immediately.
breadbox is filling in as Acting Justice on the Cortex of the golden frog.

That means that there are now two fully manned cortices, and by the rules
the CFCJ appeal would have to go to the golden frog unless someone can
tell me why it cannot?  In that case, i will assign a justice to act in
saaremaa's place (thanks for the pointer to the two relevant rules) and
distribute the CFCJ appeal momentarily.

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 14:33:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Justice filling in for the vacationing Mr. Tambourine Man

> That means that there are now two fully manned cortices, and by the rules
> the CFCJ appeal would have to go to the golden frog unless someone can
> tell me why it cannot?  In that case, i will assign a justice to act in
> saaremaa's place (thanks for the pointer to the two relevant rules) and
> distribute the CFCJ appeal momentarily.

My thought was that at the time of the appeal, it was undermanned.  I do
not have the rules in front of me to say if the facts at the time of the
appeal, or time of selection hold sway, so its your call :)

saaremaa

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 14:34:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 166 (Cortex of the Golden Frog)

This appeal has been assigned to the Cortex of the Golden Frog with
breadbox as Acting Justice for Mr. Tambourine Man, and with /dev/joe as
Acting Justice for Saaremaa
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Criminal Judgement 166 - June 7, 1998
Subject: Mu-Cow Hunter, Crime of Disinterest
Initiator: Saaremaa (sent June 8, 00:10)
Judge: Thin Man (selected June 8, 03:48) - Incorrectly selected by ACotC
Judge: Slakko (selected June 8, 10:21)
Verdict: TRUE
Appealed: Saaremaa (June 9, 12:32 Acka)
Cortex: The Cortex of the Golden Frog (breadox and /dev/joe acting for 
        Saaremaa and Mr. Tambourine Man) (Selected June 9, 14:34 Acka)

Statement:
The Mu-Cow Hunter committed the Crime of Disinterest on June 7th, 1998.

Initiator's Comments:
See rule 422; the rules no longer allow the Mu-Cow Hunter
to get away with not being subscribed to a mailing list.
Lets clean it out.

Suggested Penalty:
EXPULSION from the game.

Judge's Reasoning:
There is no email address listed as being that of the Mu-Cow Hunter on any
of the Registrar Pages, and the Mu-Cow Hunter never provided the Registrar
with an email on eir entry to the game.  Therefore, no email address
belonging to the Mu-Cow Hunter exists, and so no email address belonging
to the Mu-Cow Hunter is on the ackanomic or ackanomic-digest lists.
Therefore e was Disinterested on June 7th, 1998, and committed the Crime
of Disinterest on that date.

However, the CFJ was sent on the same day the alleged Crime took place.
This means it cannot be a CFCJ, as Rule 710 specifies that:

>3) Its "statement" shall be "X committed the Crime of Y on Z", where X is
>replaced with the name of a registered player, Y is replaced by the
>name of a Crime as defined in the current ruleset, and Z is replaced by a
>date between 1 and 30 days prior to the current date. 

Hence the above TRUE judgement is actually on a CFJ, not a CFCJ.

Judges Penalty:
If it is legal for me to suggest a penalty, then I concur with the
suggestion of EXPULSION from the game.
However, I belive that the nature of the statement, which means this
cannot be a CFCJ, means that I am unable to hand down a penalty.

Appealers Reasoning:
Sigh.  It was sent after midnight on the 8th.

I appeal it to set the record straight, and decline to hear the appeal
as described in the rules.  Perhaps the original judge can explain how
e thought it was submitted at 21:10, when the proposal results were
distributed 23: something :-)  If the Court cares, I can forward it from
my sent folder...

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 14:37:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFCJ 166 (Cortex of the Golden Frog)

>Call For Criminal Judgement 166 - June 7, 1998
>Subject: Mu-Cow Hunter, Crime of Disinterest
>Initiator: Saaremaa (sent June 8, 00:10)
>Judge: Thin Man (selected June 8, 03:48) - Incorrectly selected by ACotC
>Judge: Slakko (selected June 8, 10:21)
>Verdict: TRUE
>Appealed: Saaremaa (June 9, 12:32 Acka)
>Cortex: The Cortex of the Golden Frog (breadox and /dev/joe acting for 
>        Saaremaa and Mr. Tambourine Man) (Selected June 9, 14:34 Acka)

Are there any current Justices who are _not_ now in some way associated
with this CFJ?

Just an amused wondering.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 14:37:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Justice filling in for the vacationing Mr. Tambourine Man

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Randy Hall wrote:

>> That means that there are now two fully manned cortices, and by the rules
>> the CFCJ appeal would have to go to the golden frog unless someone can
>> tell me why it cannot?  In that case, i will assign a justice to act in
>> saaremaa's place (thanks for the pointer to the two relevant rules) and
>> distribute the CFCJ appeal momentarily.
>
>My thought was that at the time of the appeal, it was undermanned.  I do
>not have the rules in front of me to say if the facts at the time of the
>appeal, or time of selection hold sway, so its your call :)

The rules for selecting a vacationing justice's replacecment say it
happens when the justice goes on vacation, so by rights, that should have
occured a couple of days ago.  That's why I believe my call is correct :)

- --JT

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 14:39:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: more Cortex selection questions

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> > Okay.  I have a) no idea of exactly which cortices exist which was my
> > previous question.
> 
> The Entity Formerly Known as the Supreme Court, justices ThinMan and breadbox
> Tweedledum and Tweedledee, justice Dennis and Edna (Undermanned)
> The cortex of the golden frog, justices saaremaa and MTM (vacationing)
> I thought Vynd made himself a justice but I can't find any record of it.
> 

I did mention I was considering it, but I decided to wait and see what
happened to Guy Fawkes.  If his old slot is now vacated for good, and
Dennis and Edna is willing, I would be interested in becoming a Justice
and taking his place.

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 14:41:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFCJ 166 (Cortex of the Golden Frog)

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, John Bollinger wrote:
>>Call For Criminal Judgement 166 - June 7, 1998
>>Subject: Mu-Cow Hunter, Crime of Disinterest
>>Initiator: Saaremaa (sent June 8, 00:10)
>>Judge: Thin Man (selected June 8, 03:48) - Incorrectly selected by ACotC
>>Judge: Slakko (selected June 8, 10:21)
>>Verdict: TRUE
>>Appealed: Saaremaa (June 9, 12:32 Acka)
>>Cortex: The Cortex of the Golden Frog (breadox and /dev/joe acting for 
>>        Saaremaa and Mr. Tambourine Man) (Selected June 9, 14:34 Acka)
>
>Are there any current Justices who are _not_ now in some way associated
>with this CFJ?
>
>Just an amused wondering.

I don't think so, no :)

- --JT

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 14:48:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: more Cortex selection questions

Vynd wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> > I thought Vynd made himself a justice but I can't find any record of it.
> 
> I did mention I was considering it, but I decided to wait and see what
> happened to Guy Fawkes.  If his old slot is now vacated for good, and
> Dennis and Edna is willing, I would be interested in becoming a Justice
> and taking his place.

As far as I am concerned, Guy Fawkes is gone.  He may return some day, but
he has been gone long past the time he said he would return.

However, in case he returns someday and would like to reuse the name of his
cortex, I give up ownership of Tweedledum & Tweedledee, as per R416.1, and
it immediately is destroyed, and I create a new undermanned cortex named
/dev/cortex.

I welcome Vynd to join me in /dev/cortex.

Dennis and Edna

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 16:59:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Rule 1131 query

>>> If at any time the Happy Number is equal to the Sad Number, Rule
>>> 101 shall be repealed, and all players shall receive a Winning
>>> Condition.  This paragraph shall be struck from this rule if it is
>>> possible under the current ruleset for the Magic Number to become
>>> composite.
>>
>> It is possible under the current ruleset for the magic number to
>> become composite.  Has it been customary interpretation that the
>> second sentence is attached to the conditional of the first
>> sentence?  That does not seem reasonable to me based on the way it
>> is worded, let me know if a CFJ is warranted.
> 
> I'd say that that paragraph has probably repealed itself :) I
> suspect that the intent was to be conditional on the BASE value of
> the Magic Number, but given the phrasing, I suspect it just blew
> itslef out of the ruleset :)

Damn ... I never noticed that it wasn't referring to the base value.
JT and saaremaa right, of course.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 17:05:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Name Change

> The following GROK-delimited text constitutes a Sin Submission (I'm
> still missing my Brie from way back when (the Rampant Exhibitionism
> bit...))  which purports to create a new Sin...

I would encourage folks to vote against this, since Rule 777 won't
have the intended effect. Until Proposal 3212 is adopted, there is no
Seven Deadly Sins Rule Suite.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 17:07:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Rule 1131 query

> Damn ... I never noticed that it wasn't referring to the base value.
> JT and saaremaa right, of course.

Even if it referred to the base number, it is possible via the procedure
described in rule 104 (among others) ;-)

saaremaa

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #173
*******************************