Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #326
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest     Saturday, September 19 1998     Volume 03 : Number 326

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

Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 10:05:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Thralls

Since we last updated:

Sep 14: Studge's Thrall was set to Weishaupt.
Sep 14: Alfvaen's Thrall was set to Attila the Pun.
Sep 16 (P 3565): Fo's Thrall was set to marsboy.

- -- 
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, 19 Sep 1998 10:37:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 666 (FALSE)

JT has judged this FALSE.
The Chartreuse Goose is already with Wild Card IIRC, and so e pays an
additional Court Fee.

Call for Judgement 666 - September 18, 1998
Subject: Biblical PWCFJ
Initiator: Wild Card (sent Sep 18 1998, 10:50 Acka)
Judge: JT (selected Sep 18, 1998 11:16 Acka)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

It is currently equally legal and illegal for a quote from a book in what
I will call the "Apocropha" to be literature.

Reasoning:

The Apocropha is deemed by some to be part of the Old Testament of the
Bible, by others not.

Judge's Reasoning:

As stated in Vynd's judgement of CFJ 609 (August 02, 1998 Digest
V03.N253), that just because it might be indeterminate whether a certain
action is either legal or illegal does not mean that the action is both
legal and illegal.   That reasoning alone would be sufficient (in my
opinion) to judge this PWCFJ false.

However, unlike Vynd on CFJ 609, I'm not particularly pressed for time,
and so would like to address the underlying issue of whether quoting from
the Apocrypha would be considered a valid literature quotation.

In my judgement of CFJ 659, I was dealing specifically with a work where
an 'artist' was the quoted source.   Given the text of the literature
rule, which requires an exact quote from a source, I did not see a valid
case for allowing translation of a specific artist's work.  In the case
where the source is the work (such as the bible), I would say that any
literature which could validly be claimed as a representation of that work
would be valid as falling under that source.

The difference to me the difference between the following two (exemplary
only) entries for a literature list 'Artist: Machiavelli' and 'Work: The
Prince'.  In the first case, I would have to argue that only the original
works of Machiavelli would constitute literature and in the latter, any
reasonable work titled 'The Prince' would be valid *EVEN if it bore no
relation to Machiavelli's original and were in fact a bedtime story (for
example)*.

While the restrictiveness in the case of the author, and the
permissiveness in the case of the work might seem at odds, they do not
seem inconsistant to me, and in fact seem to follow as a direct result of
the words 'exact copy'.  In the case of an artist, an exact copy would
have to be as that author wrote it.  In the case of a work, an exact copy
would be words directly quotes from any text which bore that title.

Therefore, I think it is determinable under the rules whether or not a
quote from the Apochrypha would be valid as literature (yes, in my
opinion) and thus this CFJ is FALSE on that count as well.

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

Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 10:54:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Akca: Convert THIS!

I convert 4 swingpoints into a bonus vote.

IB

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

Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:54:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Rafting Ho!

Pick me Fat Cat. Pick me :)

Michael Pizolato wrote:

> Let's go rafting! Oarsman, bring yer oars! Others, bring anything you want
> except Meryl Streep!
>
> Piz

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

Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:56:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3609

Head Apollo wrote:

> Eris
>
> (*Officially* scaremonger now, still not getting paid for it.)

  I give eris A$1 for this fine rant. I take the rant home and pin it up on my
wall.

K 2

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

Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 12:33:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 666 (FALSE)

> Call for Judgement 666 - September 18, 1998
> Subject: Biblical PWCFJ

> Judge's Reasoning:

> The difference to me the difference between the following two (exemplary
> only) entries for a literature list 'Artist: Machiavelli' and 'Work: The
> Prince'.  In the first case, I would have to argue that only the original
> works of Machiavelli would constitute literature and in the latter, any
> reasonable work titled 'The Prince' would be valid *EVEN if it bore no
> relation to Machiavelli's original and were in fact a bedtime story (for
> example)*.

Fortunately the reasoning of a CFJ doesn't become game custom, except by
implicit agreement, I suppose.  I have some explicit disagreement, though,
to add to the ftp archive :-)

So if I wrote something called *The Prince* and posted it on a web site,
this would count, right?  Or wouldn't that be "reasonable"?  What is
"reasonable"?  What if I were rich and went to a vanity publisher or
vanity record label?  More "reasonable" because I have alot of money
to get it "published"?  What if my uncle was a literary agent or 
acquisitions editor for a big New York publisher and managed to pull 
some strings to get *The Prince* published?  We have the slippery slope
again, same problem as in the literature CFJ I appealed.

There are three choices to avoid this: come up with a judgement-free way to
determine what is literature (as was done in with that "attributes" 
business where everything on a web page was called an attribute even though
some things did not meet the English definition of the word), CFJ every
piece of alleged literature, or use common sense - spirit of the game
judgement.  I favor the latter approach, because when you use it you will 
end up with *The Prince* by Machiavelli and all its translations, and 
nothing else.  We all know what *The Prince* refers to, without resorting 
to all these bizarre arguments or by trying to throw judgement out the
window.  If we don't, or for some reason disagree, the rule already handles 
this case by allowing the scorekeeper's opinion to hold sway.

> Therefore, I think it is determinable under the rules whether or not a
> quote from the Apochrypha would be valid as literature 

Right, but not because some people happen to think its part of the Old 
Testament (unless the scorekeeper is one of them ;-)). I am neither 
Christian or nor Jewish and know very little about the Bible
(thsu as an aside have no other agenda to push here).  I happen to think
it is part of the New Testament.  Does my opinion count?  Why not? :-)  

Again, we all know what "The Bible, Old and New Testaments" includes in 
customary English usage, whether, on religious or any other grounds, we 
like what it includes or not.  We know, as judging humans, what THE single 
reasonable and customary interpretation of that phrase includes, and it 
does not include anything called the Apocrypha.  If people disagree, the
scorekeeper, and not the reasoning of this CFJ, are how this and future
cases will be decided.  To make it easier on everybody, though, and to
play within the spirit of the game, it makes sense to admit that this is
a judgement issue all the way, and do the Right Thing (which I believe the
rule handles pretty well, BTW).  The alternative would be to put ISBNs in
the literature list, which I think would be less fun (especially when 
enumerating all the works + translations of a particular artist).

saaremaa

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

Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 12:55:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Torch

As a Justice of Ackanomic I hereby award JT with a Bronze Torch. In
addition to the thirteen CFJs on the CFJ by player page we also have CFJ
655 and CFJ 659. Neither of these can be appealed or have been
overturned even though one of them is currently under consideration by
the court. I will submit a proposal to fix this later today. Meanwhile,
well done JT.

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, 19 Sep 1998 12:57:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 666 (FALSE)

On Sat, 19 Sep 1998, Randy Hall wrote:

> Right, but not because some people happen to think its part of the Old 
> Testament (unless the scorekeeper is one of them ;-)). I am neither 
> Christian or nor Jewish and know very little about the Bible
> (thsu as an aside have no other agenda to push here).  I happen to think
> it is part of the New Testament.  Does my opinion count?  Why not? :-)  
> 
> Again, we all know what "The Bible, Old and New Testaments" includes in 
> customary English usage, whether, on religious or any other grounds, we 
> like what it includes or not.  We know, as judging humans, what THE single 
> reasonable and customary interpretation of that phrase includes, and it 
> does not include anything called the Apocrypha.

From Merriam-Webster:

Protestant Apocrypha:
1 & 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon,
Ecclesiastes or the Wisdom of the Jesus Son of Sirach, Baruch, Prayer of
Azariah and the Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna, Bel and the
Dragon, the Prayer of Manasses, and 1 & 2 Macabees.

Of the above, the Roman Catholic list of books in the Old Testament
includes Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiastes or the Wisdom of
the Jesus Son of Sirach, Baruch, and 1 & 2 Macabees.

So some parts of what are called the Apocrypha, are or are not in the
Bible according to what type of Christian you are.

The CFJ pointed out that there is disagreement as to what constitutes the
Bible between different groups of Christians.  To say, as you have above,
that there is a single reasonable and customary interpretation is to
ignore the existence of this religious schism.

- -- 
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, 19 Sep 1998 13:22:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 666 (FALSE)

> To say, as you have above, that there is a single reasonable and 
> customary interpretation is to ignore the existence of this 
> religious schism.

I also said, which you conveniently failed to point out, that if 
people disagree with this assertion, the scorekeeper, and not the
reasoning of this CFJ, was the place to decide it.  I see absolutely
no point to your comment, nor do I see the relevance of discussing
a religious schism.

saaremaa

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

Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 13:30:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 666 (FALSE)

On Sat, 19 Sep 1998, Randy Hall wrote:

> > To say, as you have above, that there is a single reasonable and 
> > customary interpretation is to ignore the existence of this 
> > religious schism.
> 
> I also said, which you conveniently failed to point out, that if 
> people disagree with this assertion, the scorekeeper, and not the
> reasoning of this CFJ, was the place to decide it.  I see absolutely
> no point to your comment, nor do I see the relevance of discussing
> a religious schism.

Hang on.  You said that we should find "THE reasonable and customary
interpretation".  I was pointing out that there is more than one
definition of the bible that is both reasonable and customary, depending
upon your beliefs.  So your "if people disagree" should really be "because
people disagree".

Unfortunately, this means people will want to know the denomination of the
Scorekeeper before they submit proposals.  And what happens when the
Scorekeeper changes during a proposal, say from a Catholic to a Protestant
or a Jew?  What then?

- -- 
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, 19 Sep 1998 15:38:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 666 (FALSE)

On Sat, 19 Sep 1998, Randy Hall wrote:
>Fortunately the reasoning of a CFJ doesn't become game custom, except by
>implicit agreement, I suppose.  I have some explicit disagreement, though,
>to add to the ftp archive :-)

True enough, and I also admit that I'm not sure why these keep coming up
to CFJ since the rule *does* provide a way for the scorekeeper to
adjudicate them, and a CFJ can always be used to overturn the decision of
the scorekeeper if it's felt necessary.

>So if I wrote something called *The Prince* and posted it on a web site,
>this would count, right?  Or wouldn't that be "reasonable"?  What is

Truthfully given the way is currently worded, I'd say yes.  I think that
the wording could use some changing.

>"reasonable"?  What if I were rich and went to a vanity publisher or
>vanity record label?  More "reasonable" because I have alot of money
>to get it "published"?  What if my uncle was a literary agent or 
>acquisitions editor for a big New York publisher and managed to pull 
>some strings to get *The Prince* published?  We have the slippery slope
>again, same problem as in the literature CFJ I appealed.

I agree that it's a slippery slope and don't like it much either.
However, since I was asked to judge, I did so to the best of my ability
according to the wording of the rules, which does in fact come ahead of
game custom.

- --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, 19 Sep 1998 15:41:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 666 (FALSE)

On Sat, 19 Sep 1998, Randy Hall wrote:
>> To say, as you have above, that there is a single reasonable and 
>> customary interpretation is to ignore the existence of this 
>> religious schism.
>
>I also said, which you conveniently failed to point out, that if 
>people disagree with this assertion, the scorekeeper, and not the
>reasoning of this CFJ, was the place to decide it.

I merely discussed it in the reasoning of the CFJ to assert that it was in
fact possible to decide if it was legal or not.   I knew that that part
wasn't binding on game custom.

- --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, 19 Sep 1998 15:43:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 666 (FALSE)

On Sat, 19 Sep 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
>Hang on.  You said that we should find "THE reasonable and customary
>interpretation".  I was pointing out that there is more than one
>definition of the bible that is both reasonable and customary, depending
>upon your beliefs.  So your "if people disagree" should really be "because
>people disagree".
>
>Unfortunately, this means people will want to know the denomination of the
>Scorekeeper before they submit proposals.  And what happens when the
>Scorekeeper changes during a proposal, say from a Catholic to a Protestant
>or a Jew?  What then?

Umm.. No.. I'm neither Jewish (though I was raised that way) nor
Christian, and I would accept any 'reasonable in my opinion' quote for a
source if I were scorekeeper (which I'm not :)  I truly don't think that
most people would be quite so particular over this as you want to believe
Slakko.

- --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, 19 Sep 1998 16:12:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Torch

On Sat, 19 Sep 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:
>As a Justice of Ackanomic I hereby award JT with a Bronze Torch. In
>addition to the thirteen CFJs on the CFJ by player page we also have CFJ
>655 and CFJ 659. Neither of these can be appealed or have been
>overturned even though one of them is currently under consideration by
>the court. I will submit a proposal to fix this later today. Meanwhile,
>well done JT.

I thank Mr. Tambourine Man and make myself a Justice.

I am creating the cortex named 'Amicus Draconis' which is Undermanned.

If any other Justice (ungrafted or otherwise) would care to join me, I'd
be obliged.

- --JT, Justice

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ 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, 19 Sep 1998 16:36:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (Weishaupt)

Rex Mundi failed to post Phoebe's wisdom.

Weishaupt has found Pheobe's matchbox.

- --JT, OiCoRT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ 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, 19 Sep 1998 16:44:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Great Raft (marsboy)

Marsboy has found the Great Raft of Ackanomic.

The rafting trip did not occur since Rex Mundi didn't agree and he has the
Oars.

- --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, 19 Sep 1998 16:53:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RuneMaker elections

The nomination period for the Office of RuneMaker has ended.

Nominees:

JTEris
Slakko
Altra the FireCat
Wild Card
K 2

Reply to this message with your vote.

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

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

Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 16:54:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: DungeonMaster election

The nomination for the Office of DungeonMaster has likewise expired.

Nominees:

Fortunato
Weishaupt
Altra the FireCat
K 2

Reply to this message with your vote.

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

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

Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 17:00:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Ok, ok...

I had hoped no-one would point it out, but someone did, so...

The nomination for the Office of RuneMaker has ended.

Nominees:
JT
Eris
Weishaupt
Altra the FireCat
K 2
Wild Card

Reply to this message with you vote...

<geez>

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

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #326
*******************************