Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #207
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Wednesday, June 24 1998       Volume 03 : Number 207

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 01:07:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Flip-flop

I attach the positive (titanium) node of my Pyraic Frobnotzer to the noun
phrase 'a Scroll of Crumble' in the sentance "The owner of a Scroll of 
Crumble may read it as a public action." from rule 594.1

I attach the negative (green jumblium) node of my Pyraic Frobnotzer to the
noun phrase 'one of each type  of cheese' in the sentance "If ever a
player owns one of each type of cheese then e will achieve a winning
condition." from rule 611

I set off my Pyraic Frobnotzer.

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 05:42:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Discovery (Must Describe) (JPBT)

On Tue, 23 Jun 1998, JT wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Jun 1998, JT wrote:
> >In accordance with rule 1211, I am calling a Bogusity Hearing on the
> >discovery quoted below.  I am the Principal Authenticator and Hearing
> >Harfer for this hearing.
> >
> >Valid results are:
> >"This loophole surfer is totally Bogus"
> >"Thats a pretty cool idea"
> >
> 
> Hearing started at: 12:40 EDT Saturday June 20th
> Hearing ends at:    12:40 EDT Tuesday June 23rd
> 
> VOTES
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Thats a pretty cool idea"
> No Votes
> 
> "This loophole surfer is totally Bogus"
> JT, JT's EBS, Koxvolio, Koxvolio's EBS, Koxvolio's EBS, /dev/joe
> else...if, else...if's EBS, Alfvaen, Vynd, Rex Mundi, Rex Mundi's EBS,
> K 2, Fortunato, ThinMan, ThinMan's EBS
> 
> So, by an overwhelming majority of 16-0, this Boon was found to be Bogus.

Why didn't people like my idea?  It wasn't a scam, it was just an attempt
to introduce something fun into the game.  I even made sure that everyone
got one to start, not just me, so people can't accuse me of being sneaky
with the Blueprint.

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 08:22:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Flip-flop

I play my Otzma Lay Off! specifying the Pyratic frobnotzer in JT's possesion.

K 2

JT wrote:

> I attach the positive (titanium) node of my Pyraic Frobnotzer to the noun
> phrase 'a Scroll of Crumble' in the sentance "The owner of a Scroll of
> Crumble may read it as a public action." from rule 594.1
>
> I attach the negative (green jumblium) node of my Pyraic Frobnotzer to the
> noun phrase 'one of each type  of cheese' in the sentance "If ever a
> player owns one of each type of cheese then e will achieve a winning
> condition." from rule 611
>
> I set off my Pyraic Frobnotzer.
>
> [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
> [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
> [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
> [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 09:15:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Flip-flop

Moo!
I think that concussion must have done something to my head ;)

Quack Quack?

K2 wrote:

> I play my Otzma Lay Off! specifying the Pyratic frobnotzer in JT's possesion.
>
> K 2
>
> JT wrote:
>
> > I attach the positive (titanium) node of my Pyraic Frobnotzer to the noun
> > phrase 'a Scroll of Crumble' in the sentance "The owner of a Scroll of
> > Crumble may read it as a public action." from rule 594.1
> >
> > I attach the negative (green jumblium) node of my Pyraic Frobnotzer to the
> > noun phrase 'one of each type  of cheese' in the sentance "If ever a
> > player owns one of each type of cheese then e will achieve a winning
> > condition." from rule 611
> >
> > I set off my Pyraic Frobnotzer.
> >
> > [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
> > [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
> > [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
> > [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 09:23:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Flip-flop

Moo!
If you can't join em....

May I suggest that either Koxvolio or Rex Mundi (or both) black mail /dev/joe
for eir Scrolls of crumble, alternatively using a plunky monkey wrench might
"break" the tension ;)

K 2

Quack Quack?

JT wrote:

> I attach the positive (titanium) node of my Pyraic Frobnotzer to the noun
> phrase 'a Scroll of Crumble' in the sentance "The owner of a Scroll of
> Crumble may read it as a public action." from rule 594.1
>
> I attach the negative (green jumblium) node of my Pyraic Frobnotzer to the
> noun phrase 'one of each type  of cheese' in the sentance "If ever a
> player owns one of each type of cheese then e will achieve a winning
> condition." from rule 611
>
> I set off my Pyraic Frobnotzer.
>
> [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
> [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
> [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
> [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 09:28:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Discovery (Must Describe) (JPBT)

> Why didn't people like my idea?  It wasn't a scam, it was just an attempt
> to introduce something fun into the game.  I even made sure that everyone
> got one to start, not just me, so people can't accuse me of being sneaky
> with the Blueprint.

My personal reason was that I would rather have seen it as a Proposal;
although I took advantage of it myself, I'm not fond of self-deleting
text in Blueprints, and it may disappear in some future version of this
Rule.  But if you proposed it I'd vote for it.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Motels:New York Times
Current Book--Wild Cards: Card Sharks
Apathetics of the world...Ah, screw it.

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 09:31:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Oops

I just noticed that I failed to include one Whamiol whamming that should have
occurred before the Tornado.

As a result of this, at the end of the Cycle, Ayla, Vynd, Alfvaen, and Slakko
(since e was Sheltered)should have had one fewer point, and hence gotten one
fewer A$ from the end-of-cycle bonus.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Motels:New York Times
Current Book--Wild Cards: Card Sharks
People are like onions--you cut them up, and they make you cry.

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 09:38:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: vacation

I return from vacation.

What I miss?
rufus

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 09:52:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Whoo-Hoo

I am chewing the Gumball today.  It's nice and peaceful and quiet around
here, so I can chew it for a long time without being disturbed.  It's got
a Spice Girls wrapper, with Geri marked with a red "X" in crayon.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Motels:New York Times
Current Book--Wild Cards: Card Sharks
The road to hell has a silver lining.

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 10:12:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Discovery (Must Describe) (JPBT)

> > So, by an overwhelming majority of 16-0, this Boon was found to be Bogus.
> 
> Why didn't people like my idea?  It wasn't a scam, it was just an attempt
> to introduce something fun into the game.  I even made sure that everyone
> got one to start, not just me, so people can't accuse me of being sneaky
> with the Blueprint.

In addition to my objection that you were using {{self-deleting text}} to
create two blueprints with one card, the thing had some annoying little
scammabilities.  Anybody could have gotten a free 5 pts every two weeks
by sending a few public messages during that time; the last thing we need
is something that encourages people to send an extra ~100 messages a month
for a small gain.  If two players cooperate, and one is willing to accept
losses of points, the gains could be larger.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 10:17:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Discovery (Must Describe) (JPBT)

On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer wrote:
>Why didn't people like my idea?  It wasn't a scam, it was just an attempt
>to introduce something fun into the game.  I even made sure that everyone
>got one to start, not just me, so people can't accuse me of being sneaky
>with the Blueprint.

Two people, working together could generate 5 points every 48 hours with
these.  I didn't like that.

- --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: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 10:49:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Let's crumble again, like we did last summer

I examine my scrolls of crumble and note that some of them contain
appropriate rhymed couplets, though nothing seems to require the text
to rhyme. :-)

I am reading one of my scrolls of crumble to destroy Koxvolio's Plunky
Monkey Wrench.  Its text reads:
"Allakabam, allakazeem,
make sure Koxie can't block this scheme!"

I am reading another one of my scrolls of crumble to destroy Rex Mundi's
Plunky Monkey Wrench. Its text reads:
"Double, double, toil and trouble,
make that spanner turn to rubble!"

I am keeping my last Scroll of Crumble and waiting for the inevitable.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 12:47:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Micah Smukler)
Subject: Acka: Why not?

Moo!

I am assuming the name K 2 is related in some way to a mountainous
region of Asia.

Quack, quack?

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 12:53:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Fun!

Whee!  Anyone want to buy my Scroll of Crumble?

                             - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 13:07:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Micah Smukler)
Subject: Acka: thoughts

Moo!

Either the Church of the Evil Ballot Stuffer or the Moral Kiosk might just
want to think about making a Plunky Monkey Wrench sometime in the next few
days...

Quack, quack?

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 15:24:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Scroll of Crumble Users, Take Note

Rule 1240.18 specifies how the OC type Lay Off! works.

It does not specify a counter-action.

Therefore, it does not take effect until 3 days after it is played.
Crumblers, you have until 3 days after K 2's play of the Lay Off! card to
Crumble the Pyraic Frobnotzer with impunity.

Yours,
Slakko
RuneMaker
- -- 
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 - Web-Harfer,RuneMaker,ChessUmpire,Map-Harfer - www.ackanomic.org

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 15:56:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Problematic CFJ Question

Does anyone know if Vynd and Fortunato took themselves off the CFJ
Ineligibility List after deadbeating on CFJ 539?

Yours,
Slakko
worried Acting Clerk of the Court
Acting Everything
- -- 
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 - Web-Harfer,RuneMaker,ChessUmpire,Map-Harfer - www.ackanomic.org

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 15:59:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 625 (IdiotBoy)

Fortunato has declined this CFJ.  
IdiotBoy has been chosen.

Call for Judgement 625
Subject: Existence of Sin Rules
Initiator: saaremaa (sent June 20 1998, 15:06 Acka)
1st Judge: Fortunato (chosen June 20 1998, 18:02 Acka)
2nd Judge: IdiotBoy

Statement:

There exists a rule whose title contains the 
string "The Deadly Sin of Annoying the Harfers".

saaremaa's reasoning:

[None]

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 16:11:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 624 (Golden Frog, /dev/joe, /dev/joe)

saaremaa has appealed this.

Mr. Tambourine Man is on vacation.  I must therefore choose an Acting
Justice to appear for him.  saaremaa has been selected.

saaremaa has declined to judge this case.  A replacement must be selected.
/dev/joe has been selected.

Therefore, this will be judged by the Supreme Cortex of the Golden Frog,
of /dev/joe and /dev/joe.

I find this all terribly funny given our attempts to broaden the S.C.

Call for Judgement 624
Subject: Amending Return Dates
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent 20 June 1998, 00:19 Acka)
Judge: else...if (chosen 20 June 1998, 08:53 Acka)
Judgement: FALSE (given 23 Jun3 1998, 02:43 Acka)
Appealed by saaremaa
Supreme Cortex: Golden Frog, /dev/joe and /dev/joe

Statement:

Pandora's Expected Date of Return from Vacation is June 30, 1998.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

On June 5, 1998, Pandora put emself on Vacation, "until the end of June".
On June 19th, Pandora, while still on Vacation, posted "I shall return
by Wednesday 8 July".  Now, I consider this to either be a statement of
general information, or an attempt to change the EDR.  Now, I don't believe
that the current Rules allow this, but who knows?

Judge's Reasoning:

Rule 255 says "A player should specify the expected duration of
their vacation."  It says nothing about when the date must be specified.
Although a default vacation length is given, there is no indication that
the duration cannot be changed.  Rule 255 says that "The only thing a
player on vacation may legally do is take himself off vacation and send
public messages."  Note that it is possible for a vacationing player to go
on vacation, since all that is neccessary is sending a public request, NOT
performing any kind of action.  Specifying the return date also appears to
require only the sending of a public message, so this is in fact a
legitimate change, and Pandora's return date is July 8.

Appealer's comments:

> Initiator's Reasoning:
>
> On June 5, 1998, Pandora put emself on Vacation, "until the end of June".
> On June 19th, Pandora, while still on Vacation, posted "I shall return
> by Wednesday 8 July".  Now, I consider this to either be a statement of
> general information, or an attempt to change the EDR.  Now, I don't believe
> that the current Rules allow this, but who knows?

Key text of rule 255:

> The only thing a player on vacation may legally do is take himself off
> vacation and send public messages.

The only changes to the game state allowed while on vacation by the
vacationing player are public messages and return from vacation.
Changing the "EDR"  would also be a change in the game state; the question
is: which rule allows such a change?  I'm not sure any rule describes a
procedure to change the EDR, but lets assume one does, so that the more
interesting point of this case can be examined.  (If no rule describes a
way, either implicitly or explictly, of manipulating the EDR by a player,
vacationing or otherwise, the CFJ is trivially TRUE).

As an aside, I would also like to point out that previous CFJ(s) have
established that public messages with inane or otherwise immaterial
content are in fact changes to the game state.

Key part of the first Judge's reasoning:

> Specifying the return date also appears to require only the sending of
> a public message, so this is in fact a legitimate change,

So, changing the EDR is not an allowed game state change by the
vacationing rule, but the public message that carries it is.  The original
Judge seemed to indicate that this sort of "tunneling" was allowed, and
perhaps it is.  Given this tunneling logic (and I apologize if I am
misconstruing the first reasoning), it seems to me that any change to the
game state that is done as a public action via a message allowed by the
vacationing rule could be done by a vacationing player via this sort of
public message tunneling (e.g., creating trinkets).  I don't think so,
because it is still the player, and not the public message, that is
changing the game state, but who knows.
If it is the message that is changing the game state, then perhaps this
tunneling is legal after all.  If this tunneling logic is off base (e.g.
it is not legal to create trinkets while on vacation, but it is legal to
change the EDR, I'd like to know how).

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 16:12:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Whoo-Hoo

On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> I am chewing the Gumball today.  It's nice and peaceful and quiet around
> here, so I can chew it for a long time without being disturbed.  It's got
> a Spice Girls wrapper, with Geri marked with a red "X" in crayon.

Will your Spice-demented ramblings never stop?  Foul varlet.

- -- 
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 - Web-Harfer,RuneMaker,ChessUmpire,Map-Harfer - www.ackanomic.org

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 16:50:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Swingpoint Summary

Swingpoints for Fortnight ending 22/8.

No FairPlay awards were given out in the last fortnight.

1. Swinger Swingpoints

7: Koxvolio
6: Niccolo Flychuck
5: Slakko
4: Alfvaen
3: Dennis and Edna

2. Party Swingpoints
Winning Party: HARF

1: Karma
1: Calvin N Hobbes
1: Robert Sevin

Total Swingpoints
73 Dennis and Edna
58 Alfvaen
40 Niccolo Flychuck
37 Mr. Tambourine Man
28 Koxvolio
16 Slakko
10 rufus
10 867-5309
 8 K 2
 6 Guy Fawkes
 6 Attila the Pun
 5 Fortunato
 4 breadbox
 3 Karma
 3 Calvin N Hobbes
 3 Robert Sevin
 3 ThinMan
 3 two-star
 3 Wild Card
 2 IdiotBoy
 2 Rex Mundi
 2 else...if
 2 Vynd

- -- 
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 - Web-Harfer,RuneMaker,ChessUmpire,Map-Harfer - www.ackanomic.org

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 16:57:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 624 (Golden Frog, /dev/joe, /dev/joe)

Slakko wrote:
> saaremaa has appealed this.
> 
> Mr. Tambourine Man is on vacation.  I must therefore choose an Acting
> Justice to appear for him.  saaremaa has been selected.

Actually, I think you meant to say /dev/joe was selected.  saaremaa was
already an owner of this cortex and therefore ineligible to be selected
as an acting justice for this cortex.

> saaremaa has declined to judge this case.  A replacement must be selected.
> /dev/joe has been selected.
> 
> Therefore, this will be judged by the Supreme Cortex of the Golden Frog,
> of /dev/joe and /dev/joe.

Hmm, at first I felt certain that some rule must prevent this, but it seems
that no rule does.

Rule 417 has an acting justice be picked to fill in for saaremaa for this
CFJ as if he had gone on vacation.  Rule 416 says:

  When a Justice goes on Vacation, a randomly selected Justice
  (not including any Justices that are on Vacation or owners
  of the same Supreme Cortex as the Vacationing one [1]) shall fill
  that Justice's seat in the Supreme Court in an Acting capacity.
  The Clerk of the Courts shall make the random selection.
  This paragraph takes precedence over Rules that would prevent
  the same player being an Officer and an Acting Officer in the
  same Office[3]. If there are no Justices eligible to double as
  Acting Justices, then the Praetor or Acting Praetor shall
  fill that Justice's seat as an Acting Justice. If the
  vacationing Justice is an owner of a Supreme Cortex, then the
  Acting Justice performing eir duties is treated by any other
  Rules dealing with Supreme Cortices to be an owner of that
  Supreme Cortex in place of the Vacationing Justice[2]. 

[1] causes MTM and saaremaa to not be included in the random selection
process.

[2] would cause me to be ineligible to be selected as a acting justice
if the selection procedure was located in *any other rule*, but it is
right here in this rule so it doesn't apply.

[3] causes this rule to take precedence over R401 for allowing me to
hold both seats in an acting capacity.  While it only states it takes
precedence over rules that would allow me to be an officer and an acting
officer in the same office, it says it takes precedence over such rules,
not just such clauses in rules, so a single justice may be selected to be
an acting justice for as many vacationing justices as there happen to be.

Anyway, I (both of me) will consider this cfj, and hopefully I can come
to some sort of agreement with myself over it.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 17:01:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Scroll of Crumble Users, Take Note

On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> Rule 1240.18 specifies how the OC type Lay Off! works.
> 
> It does not specify a counter-action.
> 
> Therefore, it does not take effect until 3 days after it is played.
> Crumblers, you have until 3 days after K 2's play of the Lay Off! card to
> Crumble the Pyraic Frobnotzer with impunity.

Remind me again why I should?  Meanwhile, let me remind you folks that my
Scroll is available for sale, if the offer is attractive enough.

                                - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 17:22:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Scroll of Crumble Users, Take Note

On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> > Rule 1240.18 specifies how the OC type Lay Off! works.
> > 
> > It does not specify a counter-action.
> > 
> > Therefore, it does not take effect until 3 days after it is played.
> > Crumblers, you have until 3 days after K 2's play of the Lay Off! card to
> > Crumble the Pyraic Frobnotzer with impunity.
> 
> Remind me again why I should?  Meanwhile, let me remind you folks that my
> Scroll is available for sale, if the offer is attractive enough.

Because I'm the Clerk of the Courts and can determine when your Cycle Win
CFJ is finally distributed? :-)

Yours,
Slakko
Acting Everything
- -- 
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 - Web-Harfer,RuneMaker,ChessUmpire,Map-Harfer - www.ackanomic.org

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 17:54:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 624 (TRUE) (overturned)

The Supreme Cortex of the Golden Frog has judged this TRUE.
They attempted to specify the "maximum penalty available under the rules"
to the original judge.  However, to find the maximum penalty I would need
to consult the rules, as it was not included in the text of the message
provided.  Hence the attempt to penalise else...if by this amount fails,
and hence the penalty to else...if is 1 point.

Call for Judgement 624
Subject: Amending Return Dates
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent 20 June 1998, 00:19 Acka)
Judge: else...if (chosen 20 June 1998, 08:53 Acka)
Judgement: FALSE (given 23 Jun3 1998, 02:43 Acka)
Appealed by saaremaa
Supreme Cortex: Golden Frog, /dev/joe and /dev/joe
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Pandora's Expected Date of Return from Vacation is June 30, 1998.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

On June 5, 1998, Pandora put emself on Vacation, "until the end of June".
On June 19th, Pandora, while still on Vacation, posted "I shall return
by Wednesday 8 July".  Now, I consider this to either be a statement of
general information, or an attempt to change the EDR.  Now, I don't believe
that the current Rules allow this, but who knows?

Judge's Reasoning:

Rule 255 says "A player should specify the expected duration of
their vacation."  It says nothing about when the date must be specified.
Although a default vacation length is given, there is no indication that
the duration cannot be changed.  Rule 255 says that "The only thing a
player on vacation may legally do is take himself off vacation and send
public messages."  Note that it is possible for a vacationing player to go
on vacation, since all that is neccessary is sending a public request, NOT
performing any kind of action.  Specifying the return date also appears to
require only the sending of a public message, so this is in fact a
legitimate change, and Pandora's return date is July 8.

Appealer's comments:

> Initiator's Reasoning:
>
> On June 5, 1998, Pandora put emself on Vacation, "until the end of June".
> On June 19th, Pandora, while still on Vacation, posted "I shall return
> by Wednesday 8 July".  Now, I consider this to either be a statement of
> general information, or an attempt to change the EDR.  Now, I don't believe
> that the current Rules allow this, but who knows?

Key text of rule 255:

> The only thing a player on vacation may legally do is take himself off
> vacation and send public messages.

The only changes to the game state allowed while on vacation by the
vacationing player are public messages and return from vacation.
Changing the "EDR"  would also be a change in the game state; the question
is: which rule allows such a change?  I'm not sure any rule describes a
procedure to change the EDR, but lets assume one does, so that the more
interesting point of this case can be examined.  (If no rule describes a
way, either implicitly or explictly, of manipulating the EDR by a player,
vacationing or otherwise, the CFJ is trivially TRUE).

As an aside, I would also like to point out that previous CFJ(s) have
established that public messages with inane or otherwise immaterial
content are in fact changes to the game state.

Key part of the first Judge's reasoning:

> Specifying the return date also appears to require only the sending of
> a public message, so this is in fact a legitimate change,

So, changing the EDR is not an allowed game state change by the
vacationing rule, but the public message that carries it is.  The original
Judge seemed to indicate that this sort of "tunneling" was allowed, and
perhaps it is.  Given this tunneling logic (and I apologize if I am
misconstruing the first reasoning), it seems to me that any change to the
game state that is done as a public action via a message allowed by the
vacationing rule could be done by a vacationing player via this sort of
public message tunneling (e.g., creating trinkets).  I don't think so,
because it is still the player, and not the public message, that is
changing the game state, but who knows.
If it is the message that is changing the game state, then perhaps this
tunneling is legal after all.  If this tunneling logic is off base (e.g.
it is not legal to create trinkets while on vacation, but it is legal to
change the EDR, I'd like to know how).

Cortex of the Golden Frog's reasoning:

The first /dev/joe points out that saaremaa is correct that there is no
procedure defined in the rules for changing a vacationing player's
expected duration of vacation.  It is defined when the player goes on
vacation and nothing allows it to be changed.  Thus, the CFJ is TRUE.

The second /dev/joe considers saaremaa's comments regarding "tunneling"
of actions by vacationing players by way of the ability to send public
messages.  After some thought, it seems that such tunneling can occur
in situations where the rules say something like "when a player posts a
public message with property {foo}, then {bar} happens".  Here, the rules
cause the thing to occur, and the only action by the player is the
sending of the public message in question, which is allowed by R255.
An example of this is in R961; a vacationing player who is in the Wilds
who posts a public message may be heard by the B-Ack.

However, most rules which make things happen by players sending public
messages do not work this way.  Instead, they say the player may perform
action {foo} by sending a public message {containing bar, or simply
stating that they are doing foo}.  In such cases, the Vacationing rule
prevents the action (provided it has precedence over the other rule).
It doesn't disallow the vacationing player from sending the message, but
it prevents the player from doing the thing he is trying to do -- the
message succeeds but the action fails to occur.

R255 says: "A player shall be considered 'on vacation' when he or she
makes a public request that he or she desires to be on vacation."  This
is a little unclear, but it does look more like the "triggered" type of
action which may be allowed to vacationing players by way of the
tunneling mechanism.  If so, it seems he would be able to choose a new
expected return date for his new vacation.

At this point, the third /dev/joe steps in, and while the first two are
trying to figure out where he came from, he points out that even if a
vacationing player could go on vacation again, or could somehow get put
on vacation again by the rules, this doesn't change his expected duration
or end the first vacation, but merely gives him *another* one.  This
could not possibly lengthen the time before the player gets put on ice
(but could shorten it).  When a player has two expected durations for
two vacations running concurrently, when the one which expires first
does so, he is put on ice.  If he is still on vacation when the second
vacation's expected duration expires, he is put on ice again, which will
not have any effect, as he is already on ice from the other vacation.

At this point a fourth /dev/joe joins the party, and the four of them
consider the penalty to be imposed on the original judge.  They note
that the original judge started his reasoning with a fallacy -- he wrote
"Rule 255 says 'A player should specify the expected duration of their
vacation.'  It says nothing about when the date must be specified."  The
rule states, immediately after this, "If the duration is not specified
when they go on vacation, it is assumed to be 14 days."  Clearly, if
they do not specify it when they go on vacation, the rules do it for
them -- the rules thus do say when the date must be specified.  At this
point, the four who were one cross their swords and become The One Who
Was Four, and he takes his 4-times-magnified sword and whacks else...if
for the maximum penalty allowed under the rules.

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 17:58:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 626 (TRUE)

Slakko has judged this TRUE.

Call For Judgement 626
Subject: Extinct Offices
Initiator: K 2 (sent June 21 1998, 10:30 Acka)
Judge: Slakko (chosen June 22 1998, 03:00 Acka)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:
K 2 holds the office of Caped Crusader.

Reasoning:
The rule defining The office of Caped Crusader has been repealed. Game
custom holds that entities continue to exist after the rule defining em
is repealed, thus the office (having been defined as an entity)
continues to exist. Furthermore K 2 was not explicitly removed from
office. If the entity continues to exist, should not K 2's relationship
to it continue as well?

Judge's Reasoning:
Offices are Entities.  Entities may only be manipulated as specified by
the rules.  Changing the holder of an Office is one way to manipulate the
Office.  No rule specified that K 2's holding of the Office of Caped
Crusader was revoked when the rule defining the Office of Caped Crusader
was repealed.  

Therefore K 2 still holds the Office of Caped Crusader.

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 18:01:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 168 (TRUE)

Slakko has judged this TRUE.

Call for Criminal Judgement 168
Subject: Ignoring the Laws of Nature (else...if)
Initiator: K 2 (sent 22 June 1998, 22:27 Acka)
Judge: Slakko (chosen 23 June 1998, 02:51 Acka)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:
else...if committed the crime of ignoring the laws of nature on 22nd of
June 1998.

Reasoning:
On 22 Jun 1998 20:09:27 else...if posted a message that did not start
with Moo! nor end with Quack Quack as per rule 836. Since e was found to
be concussed at 22 Jun 1998 09:55:09 e was ignoring the laws of nature.

Pseudo Penalty:
A fifteen line apology in the style of the late Hoover 2300.

Suggested Penalty:
A fifteen line apology.

Judge's Reasoning:
I agree with the reasoning of the author of this CFCJ.  The penalty is not
that harsh, and for a first offence of this nature I am inclined to agree
with it.

Judge's Penalty:
A fifteen line apology.

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 18:19:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: science for sale

In order to further fund my research into the origin of the
ancients, I am willing to build and auction any gadget for which
a blueprint currently exists.

Unfortunately, my research fund is rather lame, so there will be
an A$300 up-front fee for this service to help fill the coffers.
I assure you all tasks will be done as efficiently as possible.

Anyone want a Cheez-Whiz?

saaremaa
Archaeologist

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 18:24:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Scroll of Crumble Users, Take Note

On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> Remind me again why I should? 

Mostly because we only have one Chartreuse Goose and would have an
infinite number of cycles won by at least three players that I can think
of offhand if this happened.

> Meanwhile, let me remind you folks that my
> Scroll is available for sale, if the offer is attractive enough.

I offer Vynd a Winning Condition for eir Scroll of Crumble.  (Leaving the
creation of the Trinket 'a Winning Condition' for later...)

- - 867-5309

The only substitute for good manners is fast reflexes. 

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 18:37:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Scroll of Crumble Users, Take Note

On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, Eric Plumb wrote:

> Mostly because we only have one Chartreuse Goose and would have an
> infinite number of cycles won by at least three players that I can think
> of offhand if this happened.

Remind me again why the goose can 't be in the possesion of more than one
player?

rufus

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 18:37:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Scroll of Crumble Users, Take Note

On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, Eric Plumb wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
>
>> Remind me again why I should? 
>
>Mostly because we only have one Chartreuse Goose and would have an
>infinite number of cycles won by at least three players that I can think
>of offhand if this happened.

Actually, assuming the proposal in the queue numbered 3219 actually passes
before the frobnotzer finishes up, then we really wouldn't get an infinite
number.  Besides, he stands to gain from the use of the frobnotzer as
well.

- --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: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 18:46:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Jackie C. Badger" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: science for sale

At 06:19 PM 6/24/98 -0400, you wrote:
>In order to further fund my research into the origin of the
>ancients, I am willing to build and auction any gadget for which
>a blueprint currently exists.
>
>Unfortunately, my research fund is rather lame, so there will be
>an A$300 up-front fee for this service to help fill the coffers.
>I assure you all tasks will be done as efficiently as possible.
>
>Anyone want a Cheez-Whiz?
>
>saaremaa
>Archaeologist

Hey, I am a new player how can I make some money?

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 22:04:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Doldrums

I am officially declaring Ackanomic to be in a state of Doldrums.  This is
not regulated by the Rules, so it happens.

Anyone(who's not on Vacation)want to play a game of something?  Take
Ayla's place in Eleusis?  Referee one of the Bacon games?  I'm up for
Double Crash...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--The Damned:The Light At The End of The Tunnel
Current Book--Wild Cards: Card Sharks
Everybody wash your everything!

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 22:10:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Doldrums

On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:
>Anyone(who's not on Vacation)want to play a game of something?  Take
>Ayla's place in Eleusis?  Referee one of the Bacon games?  I'm up for
>Double Crash...

I'd certainly play something.

- --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: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 22:27:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Scroll of Crumble Users, Take Note

On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, Eric Plumb wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
> 
> > Remind me again why I should? 
> 
> Mostly because we only have one Chartreuse Goose and would have an
> infinite number of cycles won by at least three players that I can think
> of offhand if this happened.

This is true, but I can't very well submit a Cycle Win CFJ for each of
them, now can I?  Might be fun to try though...  To tell the truth, I
think this whole situation is hilarious.  Not for the first time, it looks
like I have to choose between stopping a scam, or benefiting from the hard
work of others.  This could be a difficult decision, if I wasn't so lazy
and had a stricter moral sense.  I am seriously willing to entertain
offers for my scroll though.  Winning would be nice, but life does go on
in the next Cycle (and the one after that, ad nauseum).

                                       - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #207
*******************************