Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #291
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Saturday, August 29 1998       Volume 03 : Number 291

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 17:39:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Actions

On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, David Scheidt wrote:
>On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, JT wrote:
>> No. the A$ is the entity.  The quantity of A$ (-1, or 10, or 100)
>> different.  I own A$, therefore I may transfer it.  The part of the rule
>> says nothing about the quantity of entities which may be transferred.
>
>"A" and "that" generally refer to singulars.

Even in that case, it works as a shorthand as Alfvaen described.  -1 is a
singular quantity, and -3000 is 3000 applications of that -1.  I still
haven't seen anything preventing the amount of an entity transferred from
being a negative value.   I agree that it's counter-intuitive, but that
doesn't necessarily make it impossible according to the rules.

Until someone can find a way to prove (to my satisfaction) that a negative
amount isn't legal to transfer, I'm going to continue to argue.

And as I pointed out we have at least one example in the rules of owning a
number of entities with a negative quantity (points).  The rules are
silent on whether a negative number of entities of any other sort are
valid, and thus by rule 101, they should be.

The rules do specify that a player cannot give away more than they own
(rule 510), but I certainly own more A$ than the number I was giving away
(I own a positive number of A$, and that is greater than a negative
number)

- --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: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 17:42:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Actions

On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
>> Points are also entities, and you can own a negative amount of them as
>> well.  Players are not tradeable (or giftable) entities, so gifting me a
>> negative player JT is not a relavant statement. (same as I cannot give or
>> gift a negative number of points because they aren't tradeable).  However,
>> if they were tradeable, I'd argue that unless specified otherwise, I could
>> in fact give a negative quantity of them.
>
>But you don't have a negative quantity of them, anymore than I have a
>negative quantity of change in pocket right now, along with my 5 quarters,
>5 dimes, and two pennies.

Are you therefore claiming that negative points are a different sort of
entity from positive points?  There is no basis for that in the rules.
The rules say:
Points are entities. It is possible for a Player to have a negative number
of points.

Therefore, it is possible to own a negative number of at least one entity.
That would in fact be a negative quantity, no?

I admit that what I'm attempting to do doesn't make 'logical' sense.
However, I maintain that it is not prohibited by the rules and therefore
allowed.

- --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: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 18:18:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: More on Actions

I was looking at the old CFJ archives from negatively valued trinkets.
I believe the following logic, presented in the CFJ archives have some
bearing on the gifting of negative A$.

>The only question arises from the interpretation of "some or all of his
>A$".  This phrase, on first impression, seems to strongly imply that the
>value must be positive, or at least non-negative. After all, if a player
>spends some or all of their A$, you would not expect them to end up with
>more A$ than what they started with.
>
>However, the real problem is that "some or all" is simply not normally
>used to refer to values that can be negative. But it is here.
>
>The Court has decided that if a player had a negative balance, say
>-A$100, and then created a trinket with a value of -A$100, then they
>would have in fact transformed "all" of their A$, and thus would have
>adhered to the rules in the process of creating a negatively-valued
>trinket. This interpretation conforms to a parallel situation in Rule
>256, which states that when an inactive player leaves the game, "all
>of his A$ are transferred to the Treasury". If such an exiting player
>had a negative balance, the Court believes that this rule would still
>be effective. The ex-player's balance would become zero, and the
>number of A$ in the Treasury would decrease appropriately.

This is analagous and relevant because I am gifting 'some' of my A$ to
another player.  It just happens that this value is negative in this case,
as it was in the case with negatively valued trinkets.

- --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: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 18:25:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Actions

On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, JT wrote:

> The rules say:
> Points are entities. It is possible for a Player to have a negative number
> of points.
> 
> Therefore, it is possible to own a negative number of at least one entity.
> That would in fact be a negative quantity, no?
the rules explicitly allow you to have a negative number of points.  So to
have any other negative number of entities, the rules have to say you can.
They don't, so you can't.  And in any event, there is a difference between
having a negative number of something, and giving a "negative something".
That is in quotes, because the ~something is different from the something.

rufus

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 18:29:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Actions

On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, David Scheidt wrote:
>> Therefore, it is possible to own a negative number of at least one entity.
>> That would in fact be a negative quantity, no?
>
>the rules explicitly allow you to have a negative number of points.  So to
>have any other negative number of entities, the rules have to say you can.

What ever is not prohibited is ..... :)

>They don't, so you can't.  And in any event, there is a difference between
>having a negative number of something, and giving a "negative something".

I'm not giving a negative something, I'm giving a 'negative number' of
'something' where something is allowed to be given.

>That is in quotes, because the ~something is different from the something.

See above.

- --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: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 18:30:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CSR 151

On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> Since everyone else has been objecting to my CSRs recently I think I'm
> going to object to this. My main problem is with having Peter Suber as
> literature since this would include the nomic initial set and we've

Peter has written a fair number of things other than the rules to nomic.
There is, for instance, the whole of whatever the book they are an
appendix to.  And how can we forget his standup acts?

ruf"his comments on my papers are strictly off-limits though!"us

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 18:30:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Actions

> Are you therefore claiming that negative points are a different sort of
> entity from positive points?  There is no basis for that in the rules.
> The rules say:
> Points are entities. It is possible for a Player to have a negative number
> of points.

> Therefore, it is possible to own a negative number of at least one entity.
> That would in fact be a negative quantity, no?

The fact that it states it explicitly in the Points rule and not in the
rules describing any other type of entity makes me think that it applies
only to Points and not to other entities.

Maybe we should redefine Score as an Attribute...

> I admit that what I'm attempting to do doesn't make 'logical' sense.
> However, I maintain that it is not prohibited by the rules and therefore
> allowed.

Transferring A$ is regulated by the Rules.  The Rules do not allow you
to transfer "N" A$ as a single action; they define A$ as gift entities,
and allow _a_ gift entity to be transferred, and game custom allowed you
to do this many times at once without typing them all in.  (And "-1 A$"
is not _an_ entity.  It is the lack of an entity.)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.connect.ab.ca/~alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Mariah Carey:Daydream
Current Book--S.M. Stirling:Marching Through Georgia
It's a one-time thing; it just happens a lot.

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 18:56:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 650 (two-star)

two-star has been selected.

Call For Judgement 650 - August 29, 1998
Subject: Negative Ackadollar Cycle Win CFJ
Initiator: JT (sent August 29, 1998 16:09 Acka)
Judge: two-star
Judgement:

Statement:
JT has achieved a winning condition during the current cycle.

Reasoning:
With the donation of 'Big Wad of Cash' to the Museum on  Sat, 29 Aug 1998
15:59:40 Acka, JT's benefactor value exceeded A$5000.

I will note that the judge of this CFJ does in fact need to determine if I
was in fact able to gift negative amounts of A$ to various On-Ice players.

The fact that they were On-Ice doesn't make them ineligible to recieve
gifts, so if I was able to gift a negative amount of A$, then I was able
to achieve this.

When something is gifted, it is removed from one player and given to
another, so once again, if negative A$ can be gifted, then I subtracted
the negative amount from my amount of A$, and added it to the recipient of
the gift.

So the only question is whether negative A$ are legal to gift.

The fact that trinkets most specifically specify that they have a positive
value in A$, as well the fact that players can have negative amounts of
A$, certainly bodes well for arguing that a negative amount of A$ can be
given.

The rules on trades and gifts only specify that the player must own the
quantity to be given.  Since I own A$, and I own a larger number of A$
than I attempted to give, this should succeed.

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 18:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 641 (rufus)

rufus has been selected to replace Memo (who went deadbeat) who was
selected to replace J. M. Bear (who went deadbeat) who was selected to
replace Niccolo Flychuck (who went deadbeat).

Call for Judgement 641 - August 4, 1998
Subject: True Names
Initiator: K 2 (Sent 4 Aug 1998, 14:32 Acka time)
1st Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected 06 Aug 1998, 18:25 Acka) (deadbeat)
2nd Judge: J. M. Bear (selected 15 Aug 1998, 03:52 Acka) (deadbeat)
3rd Judge: Memo (selected 22 Aug 1998, 04:35 Acka) (deadbeat)
4th Judge: rufus
Judgement: 

Statement:
No player of Ackanomic has ever had an Ackanomic name (as distinct from
a real name) of Tom Walmsley.

Reasoning:
When the entity then known as
a-collection-of-numbers-that-I-can-never-remember-which-relate-in-some-manne
r-to-the-string-"Jenny"
attempted to change eir name the registrar (JT - an altogether easier
name to remember) objected on the grounds of "Malenkai's Loophole". As a
result the change did not occur.

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 19:02:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 641 (rufus)

Duncan Richer wrote:

> rufus has been selected to replace Memo (who went deadbeat) who was
> selected to replace J. M. Bear (who went deadbeat) who was selected to
> replace Niccolo Flychuck (who went deadbeat).

Okay then. Who was it? Who repealed the praetor?

MTM.

- --
Tom Walmsley [email-masked]
http://website.lineone.net/~t.walmsley/index.html
AIM: TGW666 ICQ 2925739
Bonvolu alsendi la pordiston, lausajne estas rano en mia bideo.

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 19:02:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: IRC

On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> Might I suggest that someone display the ackanomic IRC channel address in
> a fairly prominent place?  Now that snowgod's IRC client is no longer
> available, I have no idea how to access it.  And having to ask here every
> time rather defeats the purpose of the thing.

It should now be on the main pages.  If not, then I haven't saved yet.
Wait, they'll be there tonight.
- -- 
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, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 19:06:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Thrall

3468: K 2 -> Alfvaen
3469: Slakko -> Alfvaen

Alfvaen has 2 thralls, all other players have 0.

- -- 
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, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 19:41:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Actions

>Transferring A$ is regulated by the Rules.  The Rules do not allow you
>to transfer "N" A$ as a single action; they define A$ as gift entities,
>and allow _a_ gift entity to be transferred, and game custom allowed you
>to do this many times at once without typing them all in.  (And "-1 A$"
>is not _an_ entity.  It is the lack of an entity.)

That's a reason. Here is another.

Given the (tenous) logic of considering "some or all" as something which
could mean negative numbers, let's try this on for size. Here is the
hypothetical.

I own 10A$. I "give" -100A$ to player X. Well, if such a thing is possible,
then this means I owned a packed of 10A$ and another of -100A$, meaning my
overall balance was -90A$. Therefore I was in debt. Thus by R510 and I could
not give away AckaDollars anyway. No such transaction takes place.

[insert stupid sound here]

Of course this example would "allow" players to transfer as many negative A$
to some other player as they currently own. Another reason why this is very
poor policy.

Needless to say that the argument quoted earlier was sufficient. Needless to
say also that if someone could give a negative packet of money, then we need
to ask how those "anti-ackadollars" were created was created...

Before quoting the most quoted phrase of R101, "Whatever is not explicitly
prohibited or
>regulated by the rules, however, is permitted and unregulated", let's try
and read the _previous_ sentence also: "Actions described in the rules may
only be performed, and shall only have those effects, as specified by the
rules."

Calvin "Not sleeping" Hobbes

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:00:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Actions

On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, Thierry Joffrain wrote:
>That's a reason. Here is another.
>
>Given the (tenous) logic of considering "some or all" as something which
>could mean negative numbers, let's try this on for size. Here is the
>hypothetical.

Well the previous cfj ruling that I quoted was fairly explicit that some
or all included negative amounts.

>I own 10A$. I "give" -100A$ to player X. Well, if such a thing is possible,
>then this means I owned a packed of 10A$ and another of -100A$, meaning my
>overall balance was -90A$.

No, your overall balance is A$10, however many packets you break it into,
that still must be the sum of those packets.

>Of course this example would "allow" players to transfer as many negative A$
>to some other player as they currently own. Another reason why this is very
>poor policy.

I'm not claiming this is a good or bad policy.  I'm claiming it's not
prohibited by the rules, which is a completely different thing.

- --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: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:03:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Actions

On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:
>Transferring A$ is regulated by the Rules.  The Rules do not allow you
>to transfer "N" A$ as a single action; they define A$ as gift entities,
>and allow _a_ gift entity to be transferred, and game custom allowed you
>to do this many times at once without typing them all in.  (And "-1 A$"
>is not _an_ entity.  It is the lack of an entity.)

That is the crux of the discussion.   I'm not sure that is true.  If that
was the case, then the negatively valued trinkets could not have been
created either.

- --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: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:14:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Actions

On 8/29/98, JT wrote:
>On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:
>>Transferring A$ is regulated by the Rules.  The Rules do not allow you
>>to transfer "N" A$ as a single action; they define A$ as gift entities,
>>and allow _a_ gift entity to be transferred, and game custom allowed you
>>to do this many times at once without typing them all in.  (And "-1 A$"
>>is not _an_ entity.  It is the lack of an entity.)
>
>That is the crux of the discussion.   I'm not sure that is true.  If that
>was the case, then the negatively valued trinkets could not have been
>created either.

Perhaps a valid distinction can be made between being "negatively valued"
and "negatively existing."

It seems one is possible and describes a state where you would desire not
to own whatever was negatively valued.

The other seems logically null.  It is already puzzling to discuss
something which does not exist (as the act presupposes that something
exists to discuss). To move even further into left field requires us to
know what "negative existance" means.

I would hold that this is a semantically useless term and that the original
action (which required this concept mean something in order for the action
to mean something) is therefore contentless and did not happen.

Studge

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:16:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Action Retraction

I retract CFJ 650 (the CWCFJ which I submitted today).

After some private discussions (in addition to the public ones :) I see
where there might be some leeway, but probably not as much as I was trying
to abuse.   I believe that consensus is that what I attempted was
impossible, and thus did not occur.

And, there is no sense in practicing (too much) sadonecrohippofilia.

- --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: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:32:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: proposal

#submit proposal Cleaning up Frinks
Amend rule 1390.2 with the following text as delimited by CLEANUP
CLEANUP
Royal Frinks are those defined as either Royal or Regal.

Lager, sir, is regal.
Whiskey is a Royal Frink.
Cider is a Royal Frink.
Vodka is a Royal Frink.
CLEANUP

Repeal rule 1390.3
#end proposal

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

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:35:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: proposal

On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, JT wrote:
>#submit proposal Cleaning up Frinks
[snip]

That was of course *intended* to go to nomicbot.
I donate A$1 to the twits.

I donate A$5 to the twits for the earlier fun with negative A$.

- --JT

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

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #291
*******************************