Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #276
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Thursday, August 20 1998       Volume 03 : Number 276

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 02:33:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 630 (TRUE (overturn))

Call for Judgement 630 - July 13, 1998
Subject: Palindrome Win
Initiator: /dev/joe (Sent 13 Jul 1998 12:46 Acka)
Judge: Alfvaen (Selected 13 Jul 1998 12:52 Acka)
Verdict: FALSE
Appealed: /dev/joe (Appealed 14 Jul 1998, 16:29 Acka)
Cortex: The Entity Formerly Known as the Supreme Court (ThinMan and
breadbox) 
Verdict: TRUE (overturn)

Reasoning:

The Court agrees with the original judge only insofar as Proposal 3241
did not define Lager as a Royal Frink. The appealer's analogy with the
synonyms of "judgement" and "verdict" is faulty. Judgements and
verdicts, as used in the rules, are clearly understood to refer to
concepts well within their normal English meanings. "Royal", however,
is a property with attributes defined entirely within the rules, and
its normal English meaning has no bearing on its concept (outside of
the assocations it inspires). As such it is clearly understood to
function more as a name or a label than as a simple noun. The use of a
synonym to refer to that property thus becomes highly suspect,
particularly when the word is synonymous only with the common English
definition that is all but ignored within the rules. The fact that the
synonym is an imperfect one only underscores the rationale for barring
such usage.

However, the Court maintains that the rule created by Proposal 3241
did in fact have a game effect: namely, to define lager as regal. That
this effect has no secondary effects on the game may seem counter to
the spirit of Rule 605 as it has been observed in the past.
Regardless, it fulfills the requirements of Rule 609 as written. The
fact that this effect is real can be seen by considering a
hypothetical CFJ with a statement "Lager is regal". Such a CFJ should
be judged as either False or Invalid without the adoption of Proposal
3241; with it, it must certainly be judged True.

The text of Proposal 3241 is distinguished from many other possible
palindromic texts by constituting a declarative statement. A
palindromic question would not satisfy Rule 605, for example; nor,
would a palindromic string of words lacking overall sentence
structure. In fact, even a declarative statement would not satisfy the
criterion if it were in conflict with a rule of greater precedence.

The Cort therefore overturns the original verdict to True. The
original judge is penalized one point.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 02:46:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 630 (TRUE (overturn)) (The Full Story)

Apologies.  The previous message did not contain all reasoning.

The Entity Formerly Known as the Supreme Court has judged this TRUE on
appeal.  Penalty to original judge: 1 point.

Call for Judgement 630 - July 13, 1998
Subject: Palindrome Win
Initiator: /dev/joe (Sent 13 Jul 1998 12:46 Acka)
Judge: Alfvaen (Selected 13 Jul 1998 12:52 Acka)
Verdict: FALSE
Appealed: /dev/joe (Appealed 14 Jul 1998, 16:29 Acka)
Cortex: The Entity Formerly Known as the Supreme Court (ThinMan and
breadbox) 
Verdict: TRUE (overturn)

Statement: 

/dev/joe has achieved a Winning Condition during the current cycle. 

Initiator's Reasoning: 

Just after proposal 3241, named 'X', was accepted, Rule 605 gave
/dev/joe a winning condition. The conditions for this are as
follows (paraphrased; see rule 605 for the full text): 

1) The rule created by that proposal has a game effect in addition to
its own addition to the rule set and any effect of rule 605. 

It does so, it gives lager the 'regal' property, a synonym for
'royal'. 

2) Each word in the rule exists in the rule set previously, or in the
official dictionary. 

The words 'lager', 'sir', 'is', and 'regal' exist in the official
dictionary. 

3) The text of the rule is palindromic. 

'lagersirisregal' reads the same forwards and backwards. 

Thus, immediately after the score changes for P3241 were applied, I
achieved a winning condition and the title "Sage o' Doe Gas". 

Judge's Reasoning: 

Let us first dispense with the easy ones. A quick check of the
Official Dictionary confirms 2), and 3) is patently obvious. 

The only troublematic one, IMHO, is 1). Is "regal" the same as
"royal" for the purposes of Rule 1390.2? That rule states: 

Any player who successfully frinks 5 Frinks which are defined as Royal
shall be awarded a random Boon of the Ancients.

Right Handed Grapefruit juice is a Royal Frink.

Now, does "Lager, sir, is regal" define Lager as a Royal Frink? Now,
since game custom seems to dictate that anything which, in
our normal world, can be drunk, can be frunk in Ackanomic, I have no
trouble with Lager being a Frink by default. However, is
calling a frink "regal" the same as "defining it as Royal"? 

Let me consult the nearest dictionary to hand, in this case the 1976
World Book Dictionary, which is probably as good as any: 

  regal, adj.: 1. belonging to a king; royal.  2. fit for a king;
  kinglike; stately; splendid; magnificent.

  royal, adj.: 1a. of kings and queens.  1b. belonging to the family
  of a king or queen.  2. belonging to a king or queen.  3a. serving a
  king or queen.  3b. founded by, or under the patronage of, a king or
  queen.  4. from or by a king or queen.  5. of a kingdom. 6. appropriate
  for a king or queen; splendid. 7. like a king; noble; majestic. 8. fine,
  excellent. 9. rich and bright. 10. chemically inert; noble.

Also, appended under Synonyms, there are usage notes for royal vs.
regal (and kingly, but I'll omit that): 

  Royal is the most general in application, describing people or things
  associated with or belonging to a king.  Regal emphasizes the majesty,
  pomp, and magnificence of the office, and is now used chiefly of people
  or things showing these qualities.

The Random House Dictionary(Second Addition, Unabridged)has further
such notes under kingly: 

  Regal is esp. applied to the office of kingship or the outward
  manifestations of grandeur and majesty.  Royal is applied esp. to what
  pertains to or is associated with the person of a monarch.

Another question is: what definition of "Royal" is being used for
"Royal Frinks"? I'd say that, since Ackanomic has never had a
king or queen, definitions 6("appropriate for a king or queen;
splendid") or 8("fine, excellent")are the most appropriate, and the
former is very close to definition 2 of regal("fit for a king;
kinglike; stately; splendid; magnificent"). 

But let's face it, if there were a Rule which stated "Mountain Dew is
stately, splendid, magnificent, and fit for a king!", one would
be hard-pressed to argue that it was therefore a Royal Frink. So let
me now betake myself to see if there are any other questions
of synonymy in the CFJ archive for me take precedent from. 

The Judge's comments for CFJ 308 are telling: 

   Some rules assign artificial meanings to certain words, meanings that
   only apply (or, indeed, make sense) within the scope of the game.
   Examples of such words in Ackanomic include "tradeable", "judgement",
   and "newspaper".

   However, in my best judgement, a word in the Ackanomic language is
   only separated from its English meaning to the extent that the Rules
   (or some other source of legal authority) provide a clear definition
   for the word in its new context.

I think that Rule 1390.2, by saying "defined as Royal", is giving its
own meaning to the word "Royal" in the context of Frinks in
the game. It is the ruling of this Judge, then, that defining a Frink
as "regal" is _not_ the same as defining it as "Royal", for the
purposes of that Rule. 

The word "regal" appears(or did, before the passage of Proposal 3241)
only in the Champion's Cloak Rule as a harmless
adjective. So I must conclude that the game effect of the Rule that
P3241 creates is not sufficient to allow /dev/joe a Palindrome
Win. Pity. 

Appealer's Reasoning: 

The judge's reasoning is based the following: 

> The Judge's comments for CFJ 308 are telling: 
> 
> Some rules assign artificial meanings to certain words, meanings that
> only apply (or, indeed, make sense) within the scope of the game. 
> Examples of such words in Ackanomic include "tradeable", "judgement", 
> and "newspaper". 
> 
> However, in my best judgement, a word in the Ackanomic language is 
> only separated from its English meaning to the extent that the Rules 
> (or some other source of legal authority) provide a clear definition 
> for the word in its new context. 
> 
> I think that Rule 1390.2, by saying "defined as Royal", is giving its 
> own meaning to the word "Royal" in the context of Frinks in the game. 
> It is the ruling of this Judge, then, that defining a Frink as "regal" 
> is _not_ the same as defining it as "Royal", for the purposes of that 
> Rule. 

However, this is faulty, in that a synonym for *one of the examples
given in CFJ 308's reasoning* is widely used in the rules,
without being defined as equivalent anywhere within the rules, and
that is "verdict", which is used interchangeably with
"judgement" throughout rules 213-217. Certainly no judge would deny
that those words mean the same thing in these rules. We
also once had this sort of problem with "accepted", "approved", and
"passed" proposals, and "YES" vs "for" vs "in favor"
votes; some of this may still be hanging around as well. 

> But let's face it, if there were a Rule which stated "Mountain Dew is
> stately, splendid, magnificent, and fit for a king!", one would be
> hard-pressed to argue that it was therefore a Royal Frink.

This argument is a stretch from the actual situation, since it
involves trying to substitute another definition of *regal* in place of
royal, a definition which *royal* does not have. You might as well
try to contrive "feathers" to mean "sad". [Word
un-association strikes the supreme court!] In the case at hand, the
word substituted is one so close in meaning to the other as to
require a usage note in the dictionary to point out the fine
distinctions between them. 

Reasoning:

The Court agrees with the original judge only insofar as Proposal 3241
did not define Lager as a Royal Frink. The appealer's analogy with the
synonyms of "judgement" and "verdict" is faulty. Judgements and
verdicts, as used in the rules, are clearly understood to refer to
concepts well within their normal English meanings. "Royal", however,
is a property with attributes defined entirely within the rules, and
its normal English meaning has no bearing on its concept (outside of
the assocations it inspires). As such it is clearly understood to
function more as a name or a label than as a simple noun. The use of a
synonym to refer to that property thus becomes highly suspect,
particularly when the word is synonymous only with the common English
definition that is all but ignored within the rules. The fact that the
synonym is an imperfect one only underscores the rationale for barring
such usage.

However, the Court maintains that the rule created by Proposal 3241
did in fact have a game effect: namely, to define lager as regal. That
this effect has no secondary effects on the game may seem counter to
the spirit of Rule 605 as it has been observed in the past.
Regardless, it fulfills the requirements of Rule 609 as written. The
fact that this effect is real can be seen by considering a
hypothetical CFJ with a statement "Lager is regal". Such a CFJ should
be judged as either False or Invalid without the adoption of Proposal
3241; with it, it must certainly be judged True.

The text of Proposal 3241 is distinguished from many other possible
palindromic texts by constituting a declarative statement. A
palindromic question would not satisfy Rule 605, for example; nor,
would a palindromic string of words lacking overall sentence
structure. In fact, even a declarative statement would not satisfy the
criterion if it were in conflict with a rule of greater precedence.

The Cort therefore overturns the original verdict to True. The
original judge is penalized one point.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 10:33:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Pizolato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Judgement for CFJ 638: FALSE

Call for Judgement 638 - August 2, 1998
Subject: Eleusis
Initiator: Alfvaen (Sent 2 Aug 1998, 21:54 Acka time)
1st Judge: rufus (Selected 06 Aug 1998, 17:21 Acka time) (deadbeat)
2nd Judge: Piz
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

There is no game of Eleusis with /dev/joe as a player.

Initiator's Reasoning:

I was just looking over the Eleusis rule, and noticed that it said "The game
is played with 5-8 players and one optional Referee."

Now, the game commonly referred to "Eleusis Game 1" has JT as a referee, and
four players--/dev/joe, else...if, and two others(who have, at some time,
been known as The Gingham Wearer and Slagothor respectively). This is
obviously not a real game of Eleusis. "Eleusis Game 2", in which I am
currently Deus, does not contain /dev/joe as a player.

I'm not sure how this happened--was the lower limit overlooked, or changed
at some point?--but Rules is Rules.

Judge's Reasoning:

This judgement is based on the following text from Rule 701 (thanks to JT
for pointing it out to this newbie):

"If, however, the illegality or impossibility of a publically knowable
change to the game state goes unreported for at least 14 days, the action or
inaction which caused that change is considered legal, but it is still a
Crime. The change is deemed to have occurred retroactively to the time of
the attempt. The preceding does not apply to the case of events which occur
automatically, but whose occurrence is not (or erroneously) reported [e.g.,
loss of the Great Trombone]. This paragraph has precedence over rule 103."

More than 14 days have passed since "Eleusis Game 1" began with four
players. Beginning a subgame must be considered a "change to the [Ackanomic]
game state." The change was publicly knowable, as the start of the game was
announced in a public message. Therefore "Eleusis Game 1" does in fact exist
and is legal. The action of beginning "Eleusis Game 1" may have been (also
by Rule 701) a Crime, but that determination is beyond the scope of this
judgement.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 11:31:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: *That* Room...

 I go to *that* room and read The Book.

 I remind people that I have a forked tongue.

 Oh, and if I ned to act on that then please email me irect - as I am
reading by digest...

 Wild Card.

- -- 
Jonathan David Amery, Trinity Hall, CAMBRIDGE, CB2 1TJ.             #####
http://www.trinhall.cam.ac.uk/~jda23/home.html                  o__#######
Wild Card of Acka, member of SPAM, wearing a Silly Agenda Hat.   \'#######
Follower of Banna, the EBS and Odo.  Holding the Silver Key to the Vault.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 11:58:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Posts and such.

 I (Wild Card), hereby announce my intention to take on (at least) one
Fnctional Office at the start of October or as and when one comes up - so
should anyone wish to resign one and no-one else wants to do it I migthj
take over...

- -- 
Jonathan David Amery, Trinity Hall, CAMBRIDGE, CB2 1TJ.             #####
http://www.trinhall.cam.ac.uk/~jda23/home.html                  o__#######
Wild Card of Acka, member of SPAM, wearing a Silly Agenda Hat.   \'#######
Follower of Banna, the EBS and Odo.  Holding the Silver Key to the Vault.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:44:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Dice server)
Subject: Acka: Ackanomicon Determination

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Dice rolls requested by: JT <[email-masked]>
Rolls also sent to:
    [email-masked]

# Player: Wild Card
# Ackanomicon Determination
# based on the following (using a 50 sided die)
#  1 - 15 Arcane Trivia
# 16 - 20 Vile Prophecies
# 21 - 25 Inner Workings
# 26 - 30 Arcane Lore
# 31 - 33 Terrorizing Pages
# 34 - 34 Ancient Artifact
# 35 - 36 Mutation
# 37 - 38 Dark Domain
# 39 - 40 Long Lost Treasure
# 41 - 41 Forbidden Fruit
# 42 - 42 Catastrophe
# 43 - 46 Not so Forbidden Fruit
# 47 - 47 Ancient One
# 48 - 49 Judgement Day

No. of sides on every die:     49
No. of dice for every roll:     1
No. of dice rolls requested:    1
No. of rolls per line:          1

     35

Information on the dice server:
   DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE!
   Replies to [email-masked] vanish into a seldom-read mailbox.

   For instructions on using the dice server, send a message with
   subject "help" to [email-masked], or see http://www.pbm.com/dice/

   The dice server is provided by:

      Shadow Island Games
      http://www.pbm.com/

=================================================
             ** NewHoo Web Directory **
    An army of editors surfing the web for you!
               http://www.NewHoo.com/
=================================================

Original message follows:
> From [email-masked]  Thu Aug 20 09:44:11 1998
> Received: (from smtp@localhost) by xkey.com
>       id JAA23623 for <[email-masked]>; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:44:11 -0700
> Received: from herne.dragoncat.net(207.54.31.1) by xkey.com via smtp (V1.3)
>       id sma023614; Thu Aug 20 09:44:08 1998
> Received: from localhost (jtraub@localhost)
>       by dragoncat.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA03577
>       for <[email-masked]>; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:44:10 -0700
> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:44:10 -0700 (PDT)
> From: JT <[email-masked]>
> To: Dice Server <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Acka; Ackanomicon
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> #P [email-masked]
> #S 49
> #D 1
> #R 1
> #L 1
> #T Acka: Ackanomicon Determination
> 
> #C Player: Wild Card
> #C Ackanomicon Determination
> #C based on the following (using a 50 sided die)
> #C
> #C  1 - 15 Arcane Trivia
> #C 16 - 20 Vile Prophecies
> #C 21 - 25 Inner Workings
> #C 26 - 30 Arcane Lore
> #C 31 - 33 Terrorizing Pages
> #C 34 - 34 Ancient Artifact
> #C 35 - 36 Mutation
> #C 37 - 38 Dark Domain
> #C 39 - 40 Long Lost Treasure
> #C 41 - 41 Forbidden Fruit
> #C 42 - 42 Catastrophe
> #C 43 - 46 Not so Forbidden Fruit
> #C 47 - 47 Ancient One
> #C 48 - 49 Judgement Day
> 
> 
> [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
> [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
> [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
> [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
> 

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.7

iQCVAwUBNdxSaj8NitsTFjcVAQHOfQQAn2FzLy2ggHQz4Fm9zdnDEWU7+2rKlAyz
Ti/B2ZwoGuFdIrixTxSVrv+iDKgtGn0TcrIjokQ3tSo28b9RzeOgrSpCNFqzdvDn
ORydrmFIBxCu8x7cnmArHsL+Fo5VRDuaDzyUR/36PVV99mONXpsiureFX54ZhKsh
2/WsgO8P/JM=
=6BSQ
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:44:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Acktions

I change my status to non-voting, since I still seem to be a voting
player.  Oops.

- ------------------
Aaron Keesler
Lotus Notes Administrator
Intranet Administrator
Adtran, Inc.
- ------------------

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:20:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 630 (TRUE (overturn))

> Call for Judgement 630 - July 13, 1998
> Subject: Palindrome Win
> Initiator: /dev/joe (Sent 13 Jul 1998 12:46 Acka)
> Judge: Alfvaen (Selected 13 Jul 1998 12:52 Acka)
> Verdict: FALSE
> Appealed: /dev/joe (Appealed 14 Jul 1998, 16:29 Acka)
> Cortex: The Entity Formerly Known as the Supreme Court (ThinMan and
> breadbox) 
> Verdict: TRUE (overturn)

This means that August 24, 1998, 02:33 Ackatime, /dev/joe shall win the
current Cycle.  So everybody get ready.  (Those of you with hats: if
you want to keep any of them, you have to reveal them and put them on,
I believe.)

> However, the Court maintains that the rule created by Proposal 3241
> did in fact have a game effect: namely, to define lager as regal. That
> this effect has no secondary effects on the game may seem counter to
> the spirit of Rule 605 as it has been observed in the past.
> Regardless, it fulfills the requirements of Rule 609 as written. The
> fact that this effect is real can be seen by considering a
> hypothetical CFJ with a statement "Lager is regal". Such a CFJ should
> be judged as either False or Invalid without the adoption of Proposal
> 3241; with it, it must certainly be judged True.

As the judge of the "Black is not a colour" CFJ, I can see the logic in
this.  It's a fair cop.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.connect.ab.ca/~alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Club Nouveau:Life, Love & Pain
Current Book--Dean R. Koontz:Cold Fire
I saw a subliminal advertising executive...just for a second.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:34:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 638 (FALSE)

Piz has judged this one FALSE.

Call for Judgement 638 - August 2, 1998
Subject: Eleusis
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent 2 Aug 1998, 21:54 Acka)
1st Judge: rufus (selected 06 Aug 1998, 17:21 Acka) (deadbeat)
2nd Judge: Piz (selected 15 Aug 1998, 03:51 Acka)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

There is no game of Eleusis with /dev/joe as a player.

Initiator's Reasoning:

I was just looking over the Eleusis rule, and noticed that it said "The game
is played with 5-8 players and one optional Referee."

Now, the game commonly referred to "Eleusis Game 1" has JT as a referee, and
four players--/dev/joe, else...if, and two others(who have, at some time,
been known as The Gingham Wearer and Slagothor respectively). This is
obviously not a real game of Eleusis. "Eleusis Game 2", in which I am
currently Deus, does not contain /dev/joe as a player.

I'm not sure how this happened--was the lower limit overlooked, or changed
at some point?--but Rules is Rules.

Judge's Reasoning:

This judgement is based on the following text from Rule 701 (thanks to JT
for pointing it out to this newbie):

"If, however, the illegality or impossibility of a publically knowable
change to the game state goes unreported for at least 14 days, the action or
inaction which caused that change is considered legal, but it is still a
Crime. The change is deemed to have occurred retroactively to the time of
the attempt. The preceding does not apply to the case of events which occur
automatically, but whose occurrence is not (or erroneously) reported [e.g.,
loss of the Great Trombone]. This paragraph has precedence over rule 103."

More than 14 days have passed since "Eleusis Game 1" began with four
players. Beginning a subgame must be considered a "change to the [Ackanomic]
game state." The change was publicly knowable, as the start of the game was
announced in a public message. Therefore "Eleusis Game 1" does in fact exist
and is legal. The action of beginning "Eleusis Game 1" may have been (also
by Rule 701) a Crime, but that determination is beyond the scope of this
judgement.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:36:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 643 (INVALID)

Vynd has judged this one INVALID.

Call for Judgement 643 - August 17, 1998
Subject: Expiration of Voting Period
Initiator: Publius (sent Aug 17, 1998, 16:26 Acka)
Judge: Vynd (selected Aug 17, 1998, 17:06 Acka)
Judgement: INVALID

Statement:  
The proposals for which voting expired during the period
that the Muppetlabs harddrive was down have not been legally accepted or
rejected, since players did not have seven full days during which votes
were being accepted -- or, if they did, it was not clear from messages
posted as a public action by breadbox that this was so.

Reasoning:  
I was not aware that votes were being accepted during the
weekend.  It was my understanding that the harddrive was down, and that
the only way to communicate was by sending email to all players
individually.  I believe that the unusually large number of abstentions
on the proposals in question show that I was not the only one who
thought this to be true.  No alternative means of voting was made known
to the players during this period.  In some cases, had one abstention
been converted to "aye" or "nay", the outcome would have been different.

Note:  This CFJ is made without any intention of hostility towards
anyone.  I simply believe the matter was overlooked.

Judge's Reasoning:

I judge this CFJ INVALID, as its "statement" includes what I consider to
be two distinctly different statements. As is customary, however, I'll
include my thoughts on the intent of this CFJ here.

I do not believe that the results for any proposals which came due while
the muppetlabs hard drive was down are incorrect.  As has been discussed
at some length in the public forum, it was possible to vote on these
proposals during the entire time that muppetlabs was down.  Indeed, even
if the entire internet were burn to the ground, we would still have
exactly the same amount of time in which to vote on any pending proposals.
Since voting is not a public action, it can be conducted through any means
a player sees fit, including telephone calls, conventional mail,
candygram, the list goes on.  While in practice it would be highly
impractical to vote this way, the Tabulator is required to accept anything
submitted to him as a vote, assuming he can figure out what it is.  So if
this was the only statement I had been called upon to judge, I would have
rendered a verdict of false.

Now, was the fact that it was still possible to vote while muppetlabs was
down clearly expressed in the public forum?  I would have to say that no,
it was not.  Mind you, I'm not going to slog through the email archives on
this, I'm rendering an INVALID judgement, after all, but I can recall no
general anouncement to this effect, and clearly some players were
confused.  I'm not surprised myself.  This is something that I have always
felt was confusing to newer players, and when I am a mentor I go to great
pains to make it clear that anything sent to the tabulator that can be
recognized as a vote will be accepted as such. Under the circumstances,
however, I don't think anyone can fault breadbox for not explaining things
to everyone. He was busy trying to correct the problem. If this was the
only statement I had been asked to judge, I would render a verdict of
true.  But it wasn't the only statement, and everyone should be clear that
whether breadbox communicated the situation clearly or not has no effect
on whether or not the proposals in question were correctly tabulated.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 16:45:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 630 (TRUE (overturn))

>This means that August 24, 1998, 02:33 Ackatime, /dev/joe shall win the
>current Cycle.  So everybody get ready.  (Those of you with hats: if
>you want to keep any of them, you have to reveal them and put them on,
>I believe.)

Ooh, good point. I reveal these two agenda hats and put them both on:

19. The owner of this hat is a Daring Adventurer.

Weight: 139

22. The owner of this hat has constructed a shanty known as "The Lincoln
Bedroom", which e will freely rent to the public for A$50 per night.

Weight: 139

I also reveal the following agenda hat and trade it to the mad hatters
which I believe nets me A$1 although I'm not sure:

16. This hat owns an entity other than itself.

Weight: -257

>> However, the Court maintains that the rule created by Proposal 3241
>> did in fact have a game effect: namely, to define lager as regal. That
>> this effect has no secondary effects on the game may seem counter to
>> the spirit of Rule 605 as it has been observed in the past.
>> Regardless, it fulfills the requirements of Rule 609 as written. The
>> fact that this effect is real can be seen by considering a
>> hypothetical CFJ with a statement "Lager is regal". Such a CFJ should
>> be judged as either False or Invalid without the adoption of Proposal
>> 3241; with it, it must certainly be judged True.
>
>As the judge of the "Black is not a colour" CFJ, I can see the logic in
>this.  It's a fair cop.

As the initiator of that CFJ I'd like to be able to say that I knew there
would be a point to it. I'd be lying though, so I won't. :-).

Well done on your third cycle win /dev/joe!

Mr. Tambourine Man.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 20:14:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ray <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  So sorry

I am sorry...but it appears that this wonderful game is taking more time
from my life than I can spare right now.

I therefore go inactive, or whatever it is you call it to withdraw from
the game.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 20:57:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Conversion

I convert two of my Swingpoints into points.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.connect.ab.ca/~alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Theme From The Simpsons
Current Book--Dean R. Koontz:Cold Fire
Excuse me while I dance a little jig of despair.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 20:58:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Happy

Happy!  Happy!  Happy!

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.connect.ab.ca/~alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Theme From The Simpsons
Current Book--Dean R. Koontz:Cold Fire
He flung himself on his horse and rode madly off in all directions.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 22:04:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 630 (TRUE (overturn))

> I also reveal the following agenda hat and trade it to the mad hatters
> which I believe nets me A$1 although I'm not sure:

> 16. This hat owns an entity other than itself.

> Weight: -257

I pay the Mad Hatters A$10 to take possession of this Hat, and wear it.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.connect.ab.ca/~alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Delerium:Semantic Spaces
Current Book--Dean R. Koontz:Cold Fire
He drew a blank, then erased it.

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #276
*******************************