Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #241
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest        Tuesday, July 21 1998        Volume 03 : Number 241

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 00:07:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CPPIA Results

> Even without the non-player entities voting, the verdict is clear.  Thus
> /dev/joe forfeits the Standard Harfer Fee for Gaol murals, but the total
> worth of the trinkets prevents them from becoming Forgeries.

What's this? Murals?  Who ever heard of putting murals in a gaol?
While I'm tempted to just let them be the default green, something
tells me to do otherwise.  The murals in the gaol depict all the new
monsters in ADOM, one per cell, in the order of their addition to the
game, counting only the released versions, and with monsters added
within the same version depicted in alphabetical order.  Thus, the
early cells show the common things like rats, while over a hundred
cells in are things like the swamp hydra and quickling bard added only
in recent versions.  After those monsters added in the latest version,
the murals deeper inside the gaol are green, though the first few of
these may be seen to gradually fade, leaving behind portraits on the new
monsters which become more and more fully defined as the new version
gets closer to a release.  At the time the murals were installed, the
murals of the werewolf lord, elemental vortices, and other new monsters
are quite well along the way to being fully developed.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 01:14:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: An attack!

On Sun, 19 Jul 1998, JT wrote:

> I heard that 867-5309 got mutilated last night!.

This has no effect because you have to say that someone, for example The
Wages of Sin, got mutilated _late_ last night.

You're not a Zevon fan, are you? :-)

And for those of you who didn't remember Meat Loaf was in Rocky Horror,
you don't remember everyone screaming, "What's for dinner?  It's MEAT
LOAF!"?

> I claim that my Were-form is a were-dragon.

This has no effect that I can see because were-forms are not defined.
Lycanthropy is.  (After reading through more messages, it looks like the
Wages of Sin pointed out that even if you ARE successful, you'll be
Lycanthropic in a were-dragon, not a dragon.)

(Get semantic on ME, will you?)

I go to the Library.  I visit *that* room.

The animal in which I choose to be Lycanthropic is the Chihuahua.

While I'm at it, I point my Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too
Much, Really at Robert Sevin, press the large button marked "Energize",
and supply the anagram "Tin Observer" since e hasn't been doing much
lately.

- - 867-5309

Dyslexic Cultist Sells Soul To Santa 

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 01:42:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: An attack!

On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Eric Plumb wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Jul 1998, JT wrote:
>
>> I heard that 867-5309 got mutilated last night!.
>
>This has no effect because you have to say that someone, for example The
>Wages of Sin, got mutilated _late_ last night.

Actually, you are incorrect and it does have an effect :)

From rule 340
VIII. When any Rule requires a public message contain a fixed piece of
text in order to satisfy some condition, then, that Rule notwithstanding,
any piece of text in a public message which is unambiguously a close
approximation to the text in question, such that the intent of the text in
the message is unambiguously to satisfy the condition laid down in the
Rule, shall be considered, for the purposes of that Rule, to be equivalent
to the fixed piece of text. 

I think it's quite obvious that 'last night' and 'late last night' are
pretty unambiguous approximations of each other, therefore you were in
fact mutilated late last night, something which I had already heard and
reported.

Pick a form that you are lycanthropic in and enjoy it :)

>You're not a Zevon fan, are you? :-)

Nope :)

>> I claim that my Were-form is a were-dragon.
>
>This has no effect that I can see because were-forms are not defined.
>Lycanthropy is.  (After reading through more messages, it looks like the
>Wages of Sin pointed out that even if you ARE successful, you'll be
>Lycanthropic in a were-dragon, not a dragon.)

See previous reply to Wages of Sin.  :)

>(Get semantic on ME, will you?)

Yeah, well it beats getting medivial.

- --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, 21 Jul 1998 07:35:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Scaremongering

> I don't want to be an alarmist but has anyone else noticed that
> breadbox hasn't posted a single public message in over 4 days. Now
> what were those elections that he had called? I want to vote on some
> proposals! I've not been able to vote since before my enforced
> vacation!

Ah, hell. Sorry to cause a bit of a scare, there, folks.

I ran into some *more* problems with my scripts w.r.t the new player
states (and the player database affects everything else, you know).
After the temporary patches started getting too big, I decided the
wise thing to do was to stop and just rewrite it properly. And, well,
I hadn't really realized how long it was taking me. (Maybe that wasn't
the wise thing to do after all.)

It's really unfortunate there's such a huge amount of accepted
proposals waiting on this, too: the rules have yet to be updated. What
a mess! Anyway - the Rule-Harfing has to be done first, of course.
Once that's completed I'll get the proposals taken care of.

**** PLEASE NOTE ****

There are SIX proposals that are due THURSDAY. Because of the above,
they aren't currently listed on the current proposals page. (Argh, I
know: I'm gonna indirectly cause another quorum failure.) They ARE
listed on the nomicbot pages, however - those of you who make use of
that page should be fine. And I can repost those proposals as well, if
people wish.

MTM: there shouldn't be anything stopping you from voting right now.
If that's not the case, then let me know.

breadbox
buried, but alive

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 07:44:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Scaremongering

> I ran into some *more* problems with my scripts w.r.t the new player states

Oh yeah, and also a reminder to folks: There is no longer any such
vote as PRESENT. My scripts will stop accepting PRESENT as a synonym
for BAA! very soon, since it is no longer recognized by the rules.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 11:05:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 591 (FALSE (overturned))

/dev/cortex have overturned this to FALSE with a penalty of 5 points to the
original judge.

CotC.
- -------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 591- May 11, 1998
Subject: Learning Lessons
Initiator: Pandora (sent May 11, 1998, 08:03)
Judge: Ayla (selected May 13, 1998, 17:40)
Judgement: TRUE
Appealed by: Slakko, May 16, 1998
Cortex: TEFKatSC, ThinMan and breadbox, assigned May 18, 1998
Cortex: /dev/cortex, /dev/joe and MTM, reassigned July 20, 1998
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:
TGW has not learned eir lesson.

Initiator's Reasoning:
My reasoning is illustrated by the following quoted message:

>Ahem. Despite what the player/entity page may or may not say I have in fact
>learned my lesson. Check the BPH logs if you don't believe me. Whilst
>discussing BPHs I also note that ;) is not a rule recognised smiley. I
>unlearned my lesson the first time by calling a BPH on Slakko for a similar
>smiley (you people really should be paying a bit more attention :-)
>
>TGW (making the most of this :-).

regardless of what the rules may say, e has quite clearly not learned eir
lesson (I am CCing this CFJ to the main list, since TGW is COTC -- not that
I'm
suggesting e might 'forget' to process this CFJ or anything)

Judge's Reasoning:
The most recent information I could find about this subject was that TGW
unlearned eit lesson on Feb 23 12:52 EST. Therefore, I judge Pandora's
statement TRUE.

Appealer's Reasoning:

The Bracket/Smiley Pedantry Hearing Archive clearly lists the following
information:

BPH 105: Called by Hubert on The Gingham Wearer on Fri, 13 Mar 1998.

Message in question:

> Crusader. I still think I'm eligible for a cheese though (and had
already
> pointed this out to Alfvaen :-) though, because I have held five offices

Results: The Hearing voted 1-0 for "It was obviously in violation!" at
Sun, 22 Mar 1998 23:37:54 -0500

As a result of this Hearing, The Gingham Wearer once again Learned Eir
Lesson.  The Gingham Wearer has not called a BPH since, and hence could
not have lost the fact that he has Learned Eir Lesson.

Hence TGW has learned eir lesson.

Supreme Cortex's Reasoning:

The appealer's reasoning is correct, and once the correct web page with the
updated data on it was presented, there was no doubt.

There was an issue as to whether the CFJ should be judged invalid instead,
since it refers to the player by an abbreviated form of his name, but the
past logic used to do this, e.g. in CFCJ 146, is based on the precise form
of the statement mandated by the CFCJ rule, or similar language in the
CWCFJ rule.  The general Ackanomic usage is less strict than this, and
anything which unambiguously identifies a player can be considered to
refer to him, but such things are simply *not* the player's name.

The original judge should have tried harder to find the relevant web page,
and so gets a 5 point penalty.

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 11:05:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 575 (FALSE (overturned))

/dev/cortex has overturned this verdict with a 5 point penalty to the
appealer.

CotC
- --------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 575- April 21, 1998
Subject: Witch hunts
Initiator: Slakko (sent April 21, 1998, 11:55)
Judge: Rex Mundi (selected April 22, 1998, 11:21)
Judgement: TRUE
Appealed by: Vynd, May 1, 1998
Cortex: TEFKatSC, ThinMan and breadbox, assigned May 18, 1998
Cortex: /dev/cortex, /dev/joe and MTM, reassigned July 20, 1998
Verdict: FALSE

Statement:
K 2 is not Enlightened.

Reasoning:
Rule 1307 only allows witchhunts when a player publicly refers to the
earth being round.  K 2 referred to the earth being banna.  There is no
proof in favour of or against the idea that banna-shaped is round, so we
cannot say that calling something banna-shaped is referring to it being
round.  K 2 did not say that Black is or is not a colour, and hence no
witchhunt could have been called on em.  Hence e was not Burned as a
Heretic, and hence e is not Enlightened.

Judge's Reasoning:
I concur with the initiator's reasoning.

Appeal Reasoning:

I do not follow the initiator's reasoning on this matter.  The rule
does indeed say that Witchhunts may be called if a player publicly refers
to the Earth being round.  But it then provides for a hearing, the
purpose of which is to DETERMINE if the message in question did indeed
refer to the Earth being round.

Who is Slakko, or any other individual, to say that banna are not round,
and that saying the Earth is banna shaped is not the same as calling it
round? He is not empowered by the rules to draw such conclusions.  The
Witchhunt Hearing is the only method which the rules give us for
determining what constitutes a reference to something being round.

The idea that Witchhunts can be called on messages which do not state
outright "The Earth is Round" is well rooted in game custom.  The first
Witchhunt ever was called on the statement "The earth is... square?"
Another Witchhunt was called on an attempt to repeal then Rule 729
Ackanomic Middle Ages.  There are many similar examples.  This is the only
game custom I am aware of on what constitues a reference to roundness, and
what it seems to tell us is that a reference to roundness is whatever a
Witchhunt says it is.  Thus the Witchhunt called on K 2 was valid, he
burned like the foul witch that he was, and now he stands as an upright
and Enlightened member of the community.

Supreme Cortex's Reasoning:

It is reasonable to interpret the rule as saying either that the hearing
can only be called if someone has said the earth is round, or the hearing
is called to determine whether an heretical comment was made. The latter
seems to be supported by the phrase "quotes his or her allegedly heretical
message" in rule 1307 and by game custom, including the history quoted in
the appealer's reasoning. Therefore, this CFJ is overturned to FALSE.
The original judge is penalized 5 points.

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 11:05:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 162 (TRUE (upheld))

This has been upheld by /dev/cortex with a penalty of 25 points to the
appealer.

CotC.
- ----------------------------------------------------
Call For Criminal Judgment 162 (April 23)
Subject: Exhibitionism 2
Initiator: K 2  (sent April 22, 1998, 22:57)
Judge: The Gingham Wearer (deadbeat)
Second Judge: Alfvaen (selected April 30, 1998, 17:34)
Judgement: TRUE
Appealed by: Hubert on May 5, 1998
Cortex: Assigned May 6, 1998 to The Entity Formerly Known as the Supreme
  Court (ThinMan & breadbox)
Cortex: Reassigned July 20, 1998 to /dev/cortex (/dev/joe & Mr. Tambourine
Man)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:
Hubert committed the Crime of Illegal Action on 22nd April 1998.

Initiator's Reasoning:
On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 17:20:00 Hubert posted:
.....
I dance on the Town Hall Steps.  Naked.
.....

Rule 842 states:
At all times it is illegal to dance naked on the Town Hall Steps.

Of course this brings up the question of what exactly naked is in
ackanomic. Is it the fact that one is not wearing a rule defined
garment? Or simply that one describes oneself as being naked? Either way
Hubert was naked.

Suggested penalty:
Transference of a Wool sweater from the treasury to Hubert to cover eir
nakedness.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

The suggested penalty is not a valid one according to Rule 710.  Only
a transferrence of an entity from Hubert to K 2 would be valid.  However,
I think that there is some game custom that a CFCJ shall not be rendered
invalid merely because of an invalid suggested penalty.  (See, for instance,
CFCJ 137.)

Rule 842's requirements are indeed clear.  I'm not sure whether or not it
is actually the Crime of Rampant Exhibitionism to dance naked on the town
hall steps(it is listed as "illegal", not "a Crime"), but Hubert certainly
did not pay A$2 to the First Citizen for a[sic] Exhibitionist's permit,
and the dance was not described in verse.  Therefore, e committed the
Crime of Rampant Exhibitionism.

Actual penalty:

A FINE of A$2(to cover the Exhibitionist's permit) and
a PUBLIC APOLOGY of 5 lines so that Hubert may properly describe eir dance
in verse.

Appealer's reasoning:

Firstly, the CFCJ was on the matter of the Crime of Illegal Action (i.e.,
performing an action that is specified by the Rules to be illegal).  The
judge's reasoning showed how I had performed the Crime of Rampant
Exhibitionism, for which I have already been convicted.  Rule 710 says
that a CFCJ shall be judged TRUE if the Crime Y [Illegal Action] was
committed by player X [yours truly] on date Z [22nd April 1998].
Therefore, Alfvaen's reasoning is moot and belongs in CFCJ 161 or 163.  (I
might add that the double jeopardy clause (section 10) of R710 does not
prevent me from being tried for Rampant Exhibitionism twice now that I
look at it more closely; it prevents a player from being tried twice for
the same instance of "allegedly breaking the Rules," which is, of course,
Blatant Disregard.)

Next, I shall attempt to show that I did not, in fact, commit the Crime of
Illegal Action.  Rule 842 states "At all times it is illegal to dance
naked on the Town Hall Steps." [ The second clause, "For the purposes of
this rule a player is considered to be naked if e is not wearing a rule
defined garment," was not in effect on 22 April 1998. ]  The Rules did not
define nakedness, and it could be construed that the sentence fragment
"Naked." after I stated I was dancing on the Town Hall steps did not make
me so, but that is not the thrust of my reasoning.  At the time of the
creation of Rule 842 there existed a Trinket called "naked".  Since this
Trinket existed before Rule 842 was created, I would argue that Rule 842
refers to dancing this Trinket (a kind of puppet, which indeed refers to
itself being danceable) on the Town Hall steps.  In which case, it
probably exploded.  Anyway, since I did not come near that Trinket
(really!  It was the one-armed man!) I could not have danced naked on the
Town Hall steps.  Thank you, and good night.

Supreme Cortex's Reasoning:

The appealer's argument, applying a twisted but just barely plausible
meaning to the word "naked", fails because K 2 destroyed "naked" April 2nd,
before the Town Hall rule was created on April 8th.  Thus, we revert to the
most sensible meaning of 'naked' in that rule before it was defined by an
amendment, which is either "not wearing any garment" or stating in the
attempted action that he is doing so naked.  The act in question met either
definition of naked, so constitutes the crime of Illegal Action.  (Since
garments are defined, the definition of "naked" as not wearing garments
makes more sense, and would probably hold out over the other if there was
some question about it, which trumps any possible issue over the meaning of
the word "Naked" in that message, standing alone as a sentence fragment.)

/dev/cortex would like to point out that even if the trinket "naked" had
still existed when the rule was created, the appealer's contrived
explanation for the meaning of "dance naked on the town hall steps" could
still be superseded by the more sensible one of not wearing garments, as
has precedent in CFJ 506 where it was judged that "No other players"
made more sense as its common English meaning than as the name of the
player "No other players", in the given context.  As a result of all of
this, /dev/cortex recommends the maximum penalty of 25 points to the
appealer, in addition to upholding the original penalty to the accused.

/dev/cortex agrees that the double jeopardy prohibition in R710, as
currently written, does not cover crimes other than Blatant Disregard,
and should be amended to fix this (but possibly with some limit, so
that if somebody is committing a crime continuously, you can CFCJ them
again after some reasonable length of time if they have not fixed the
situation).

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 11:13:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 575 (FALSE (overturned))

On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> /dev/cortex has overturned this verdict with a 5 point penalty to the
> appealer.
> 
> CotC

> the appealer's reasoning. Therefore, this CFJ is overturned to FALSE.
> The original judge is penalized 5 points.

Clearly the Clerk mispoke when he said that I was to be penalized.

                            - The Wages of Sin

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 11:16:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ status

The Wages of Sin wrote:

>Well, I don't want to be rude, but I think someone has to ask the
>question: Can The Entity Formerly Known As The Supreme Court Justices do a
>better job in the future, or would it perhaps be best if one or both of
>them stepped down?
>
>I really am reluctant to bring this up.  I don't want to meddle in the
>internal affairs of any of the Cortexes, and normally I have no problem at
>all with Acka's unspoken custom of giving Supreme Court(s) as much time as
>they need.  After all, they're the highest authority, so who wants a hasty
>decision?  But with so many CFJs on hold, some of them for nearly three
>months, well, I gotta wonder whats going on in there?

The question is appropriate.  I have for weeks intended to resign from the
Court once we cleared the backlog.  I did not want, however, to dump my
work on anyone else.  Unfortunately, I have not been pursuing the resolution
of these CFJs, either.  My time for Acka has dwindled.  I will make my most
valliant attempt to get things taken care of.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 13:08:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 575 (FALSE (overturned))

TWoS (use the initials, it's much easier) wrote:

> > /dev/cortex has overturned this verdict with a 5 point penalty to the
> > appealer.
> > 
> > CotC
> 
> > the appealer's reasoning. Therefore, this CFJ is overturned to FALSE.
> > The original judge is penalized 5 points.
> 
> Clearly the Clerk mispoke when he said that I was to be penalized.

I did, but it's not my fault really it's not, it's that damn justice from
/dev/cortex, what's e called, not /dev/joe, the other one.... seriously
though folks, I meant 5 points of penalty to the original judge.

MTM.

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 16:53:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: An attack!

On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Eric Plumb wrote:

> While I'm at it, I point my Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too
> Much, Really at Robert Sevin, press the large button marked "Energize",
> and supply the anagram "Tin Observer" since e hasn't been doing much
> lately.

I then thwap myself and credit TGW/MTM with the authorship of the above
anagram as I meant to do in the previous message.  Sorry, penguin boy.

- - 867-5309

2+2=5 for extremely large values of 2.

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 21:26:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Eleusis Game 1 - Round 2 - else...if's play

> 3 D (867-5309 [#])    | 4 S (MTM (JT))
> 5 D (else...if)       | 9 S (867-5309) 3 C (MTM [*])

8D

- --
- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and
enjoy it.
		-Logan Pearsall Smith

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 21:35:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Eleusis Game 1 - Round 2 - else...if's play

> > 3 D (867-5309 [#])    | 4 S (MTM (JT))
> > 5 D (else...if)       | 9 S (867-5309) 3 C (MTM [*])

else...if attempted:
> 8D

Yes, this play is correct.

/dev/joe
Deus

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #241
*******************************