Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #337
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Sunday, September 27 1998      Volume 03 : Number 337

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

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 09:17:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Head Apollo" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 670 (Eris)

Reasoning: I would like to judge this a certain way, I won't tell you which,
because I am aware of certain flaws and of my inevitable disappointment, but
Greed has always been one of my favourite colours.

Judgement: True

Eris

(Discordianism would have expected a judgement of harf...)

>Eris has been selected.
>
>Call for Judgement 670 - September 27, 1998
>Subject: Evil Usurpation of Power
>Initiator: Anathema (sent 27 Sep 1998, 06:01 Acka)
>Judge: Eris
>Judgement:
>
>Statement:
>
>The initiator of this CFJ and any judges who ruled in TRUE have the power
>to add, delete, and modify rules by unanimous agreement among themselves.
>
>Reasoning:
>
>Do you need any?
>
>
>

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

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 09:17:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Head Apollo" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 670 (Eris)

>Let me restate this to be more in line with CFJ 489, which ruled against
>prospective actions based primarily on their "dormancy"
>
>As of every second from now until one week from now, I suggest that:
>
>Eris and I change the rules to add the following
>HARF-delimited text as rule 1, if no rule 1 exists:
>
>HARF
>All CFJs and appeals of CFJs must be approved by both Eris nd Anathema
>before they are assigned to judges or cortices.  If consent is not given by
>both within three days, the CFJ or appeal is to be onsidered judged
>INVALID.  All Crisis Resolution Documents must be explicitly approved by
>both Eris and Anathema to be enacted.  Eris and Anathema can add, amend,
>and repeal rules by unanimous public agreement.  This rule takes precedence
>over all rules.
>HARF
>
>
>Eris: how bout some Discordianism here?

Despite my conflicting emotions I agree with the above. Oh, the humanity!

Eris

(Still cackling insanely, somewhat appropriately.)

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

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 09:23:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 671 Bronze Torch Reasoning

Mr. Clerk of the Court/Web Harfer type person, could you please take the
following TROLL delimited text as my Bronze Torch reasoning on CFJ 671?
Thank you.

TROLL
As the initiator of CFJ 503 I too disagreed with Alfvaen's reasoning on
it. As I was preparing an appeal though, I noticed an error in my
reasoning. As Alfvaen pointed out this was how I derived my assumption
that all numbers were equal:

a. a/x=y (given)
b. b/x=y (given)
c. ax/x=xy (multiplying both sides by x)
d. bx/x=xy (multiplying both sides by x)
e. a=xy (cancelling same quantity on top and bottom of denominator)
f. b=xy (cancelling same quantity on top and bottom of denominator)
g. a=b (quantities equal to the same thing are equal to each other)

The bit of this that doesn't work is parts e and f. You cannot cancel
x/x. Normally when you cancel something in this manner you are actually
doing x/x=1 and a (or b) *1 =a (or b). However, in this instance x/x *is
not* 1. x/x=0 because anything/0=0.

What you are attempting to do is this:

If x/a=b then x=a*b

How do you derive this?

x/a=b (given)
xa/a=ab (multiply both sides by a)
x=ab (cancelling a/a)

For the same reason as above you cannot cancel a/a because a/a=0. By
cancelling a/a what you are actually proving is this:

0x=ab
0=0 (because a=0)

Which is hardly note-worthy and is certainly not enough to justify all
proposals passing.
TROLL

Rambo R Minuteman.

- --
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: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 09:33:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 670 (TRUE)

Eris has judged this TRUE.

Call for Judgement 670 - September 27, 1998
Subject: Evil Usurpation of Power
Initiator: Anathema (sent 27 Sep 1998, 06:01 Acka)
Judge: Eris (selected 27 Sep 1998, 06:01 Acka)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:  

The initiator of this CFJ and any judges who ruled in TRUE have the power
to add, delete, and modify rules by unanimous agreement among themselves.

Reasoning: 

Do you need any?
  
Judge's Reasoning:

I would like to judge this a certain way, I won't tell you which,
because I am aware of certain flaws and of my inevitable disappointment,
but Greed has always been one of my favourite colours.

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

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 09:34:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ appeal

I appeal CFJ 670.

I point out that Eris' acknowledgement of Anathema's offer failed because
e failed to specify which of the thousands of offers e was in fact
acknowledging.

- -- 
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: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 10:02:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Head Apollo" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 670 (Eris)

I suggest that Anathema and I change the rules to add the following
HARF-delimited text as rule 1, if no rule 1 exists:

HARF
All CFJs and appeals of CFJs must be approved by both Eris and Anathema
before they are assigned to judges or cortices.  If consent is not given by
both within three days, the CFJ or appeal is to be onsidered judged INVALID.
All Crisis Resolution Documents must be explicitly approved by both Eris and
Anathema to be enacted.  Eris and Anathema can add, amend, and repeal rules
by unanimous public agreement.  This rule takes precedence over all rules.
This rule may not be squibbled should squibbling ever be a rule-defined
action.
HARF

OK let's go to work.

Eris

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

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 10:07:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 670 (1-TRUE)

Slakko has appealed.  This goes to Amicus Draconis.

Call for Judgement 670 - September 27, 1998
Subject: Evil Usurpation of Power
Initiator: Anathema (sent 27 Sep 1998, 06:01 Acka)
Judge: Eris (selected 27 Sep 1998, 06:01 Acka)
Judgement: TRUE
Appellant: Slakko
Cortex: Amicus Draconis
Judgement:

Statement:  

The initiator of this CFJ and any judges who ruled in TRUE have the power
to add, delete, and modify rules by unanimous agreement among themselves.

Reasoning: 

Do you need any?
  
Judge's Reasoning:

I would like to judge this a certain way, I won't tell you which,
because I am aware of certain flaws and of my inevitable disappointment,
but Greed has always been one of my favourite colours.

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

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 10:07:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Head Apollo" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ appeal

>I point out that Eris' acknowledgement of Anathema's offer failed because
>e failed to specify which of the thousands of offers e was in fact
>acknowledging.

I thwap Slakko with the newbie wand of awesome power, provided it is legal
for me to do so whilst cackling insanely.

Eris

(Maths troll slayer, by appointment only.)

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

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 10:31:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Hmmm

I rule CFJ 670 TRUE.
- -- 
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: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 10:45:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Thrall

Sorry about these - I haven't been keeping up like I should.  Fortunately
there have been hardly any potential enthrallments to worry about.

On 23rd September the following thrall changes took place:

P3587: Fo's Thrall Attribute was set to Vynd
P3590: Fo's TA was set to rufus
P3592: ThinMan's TA was set to Fo.

Current totals:

5: Slakko
3: Alfvaen
2: JT, Rambo R Minuteman
1: Anathema, 867-5309, Attila the Pun, breadbox, /dev/joe, rufus
- -- 
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: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 12:54:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Hmmm

On Sun, 27 Sep 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> I rule CFJ 670 TRUE.
> -- 
> 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
> 

A nice try, but I think ruling, or judging, CFJs is too well defined by
the Rules for this to work.

Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 15:15:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 670 (Eris)

At 10:02 AM 9/27/98 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>I suggest that Anathema and I change the rules to add the following
>HARF-delimited text as rule 1, if no rule 1 exists

I affirm this suggestion if i am able to do so. (DOH! I overslept!
Huberted out of my emperorship?)

In the future, I affirm all suggestions by Eris that add the following
HARF-delimited text as rule 1:

HARF 
All CFJs and appeals of CFJs must be approved by both Eris and Anathema 
before they are assigned to judges or cortices. If consent is not given by 
both within three days, the CFJ or appeal is to be onsidered judged INVALID. 
All Crisis Resolution Documents must be explicitly approved by both Eris and 
Anathema to be enacted. Eris and Anathema can add, amend, and repeal rules 
by unanimous public agreement. This rule takes precedence over all rules. 
This rule may not be squibbled should squibbling ever be a rule-defined 
action. 
HARF

- --Anathema
  Dungeon Master - Religious Caste - Crazy French Scotsman - Really Weird

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

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 16:06:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3609 rejected

>> Results of Proposal 3609
>> 
>> 17/30 votes: Quorum achieved
>> 5/16 YES votes: Proposal rejected
> 
> =From rule 102:
> 
>> Then, quorum is met if either (a) at least 60% of the 
>> players in the head count have cast a vote, or (b) at least 36% 
>> of the players in the head count have voted YES, or both. In no 
>> other circumstances is quorum met. 
> 
> There's a flaw in the slaw somewhere.

Oh, brother. You're not going to believe this....

My script checks for 50%, not 60%. I must have misread 3351 when I
implemented it.

*smacks head against wall*

Fortunately, we've been well over quorum for quite a while, so I doubt
anything earlier than this is incorrectly reported.... Aw, geez.

As soon as I finish going through the rest of my mail, I'll sort this
out.

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 17:55:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 670 (Eris)

> Statement:  
> 
> The initiator of this CFJ and any judges who ruled in TRUE have the power
> to add, delete, and modify rules by unanimous agreement among themselves.

Oh, brother.

Rule 101:

"The rules and the game state may only be changed as described in the
rules."

Rule 215:

"If a statement on which Judgement has been called is Judged to be
true, and that Judgement is not overruled, it does not thereby become
a rule, or any part of a rule. It merely becomes an explicit part of
currently accepted game custom."

The only other time I can think of that a judge knowingly returned an
incorrect ruling on a CFJ, e was assigned the maximum penalty. I
strongly encourage the Cortex that gets the appeal of CFJ 670 to do
likewise.

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 18:20:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Puppet Heads

The following players are issued Puppet Heads, in accordance with Rule
207:

Altra the FireCat
Anathema
Calvin N Hobbes
Ethelred
IdiotBoy
marsboy
Niccolo Flychuck
Piz
Rig R. Mortis
Robert Sevin
Robin Hood
ThinMan
two-star

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

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 18:28:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Puppet Heads

Memo to myself: Do the dumb things I gotta do.
Touch the puppet head.

At 06:20 PM 9/27/98 -0400, you wrote:
>The following players are issued Puppet Heads, in accordance with Rule
>207:
>
>Altra the FireCat
>Anathema
>Calvin N Hobbes
>Ethelred
>IdiotBoy
>marsboy
>Niccolo Flychuck
>Piz
>Rig R. Mortis
>Robert Sevin
>Robin Hood
>ThinMan
>two-star

- --Anathema
  Dungeon Master - Religious Caste - Crazy French Scotsman - Really Weird

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

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 19:15:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Head Apollo" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 670 (Eris)

>The only other time I can think of that a judge knowingly returned an
>incorrect ruling on a CFJ, e was assigned the maximum penalty. I
>strongly encourage the Cortex that gets the appeal of CFJ 670 to do
>likewise.
>
>breadbox
>

Maximum penalty? Go on, do your worst...

Eris

(Taunting the cortex, as if that'll make it better.)

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

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 22:53:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Puppet Head

memo to m'self: do
the dumb things I gotta do.
touch the puppet head.

**two-star

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #337
*******************************