Subject: ackanomic Digest V4 #166
From: [email-masked]
To: ackanomic digest users <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 19:24 EDT

ackanomic Digest	Wednesday, June 23 1999	Volume: 04  Issue: 166

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

From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: MTG*: *ping*
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:06:25 -0400 (EDT)

>I bid A$25 for an 'e'.

This wins. The truth is:

IF AND ONLY IF today * FEE* ***E **E ******E **** ****, ** **** ** **** ****, 
THEN the Machine That Goes *ping* shall go *ping*.

CnH

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

From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: My Judgement
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:21:15 -0400 (EDT)

Statement: Proposal 4207 was rejected.

My Ruling: FALSE

My Reasoning:

There are three splitting routes, but all lead to the same results.

Either the scam worked like it was supposed to (Case I), or not (CaseII).

In Case I, everything went to plan, and the scam worked clean and P4207
passed in the process.

In Case II either Dragon Mage's first action ("I convert all of my points
except for 125 to A$ at the rate of 1 point to A$.") looped until the
treasury was empty (Case IIa), or misfired completely (Case IIb).

In Case IIa, enough of the right conversions worked (and he had all the
money he needed) that he could have changed his Voting Characteristic and
voted at least 1100 on P4207.  The scam worked, but mostly by accident.

In Case IIb, the scam worked more directly (but still accidentally), with
only minor diviations in the math of Dragon Mages actions.  He could still
have changed his Voting Characteristic and voted at least 1100 on P4207.

All three routes pass through a successful P4207, so this CFJ is trivially
FALSE.

There is still the issue of the modern interpretation of Rule 1 in an
environment where explicit entityhood is the case and what the definition
of the gamestate actually IS is not well known...

I suggest another CFJ to find out which of these routes was taken.

Studge

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

Subject: Re: Acka: My Judgement
From: Joseph DeVincentis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 02:01:21 -0400 (EDT)

Mueller wrote:
> There is still the issue of the modern interpretation of Rule 1 in an
> environment where explicit entityhood is the case and what the definition
> of the gamestate actually IS is not well known...

The interpretation of Rule 1, and how it applies to the attempted actions,
are a large part of the point of this whole CFJ, so ignoring this does the
CFJ no justice.

Here are the major points, as I see them:

I. The happy number & sad number used to be part of the game state, when
they were defined in the rules.  We need to find out if they still are,
because R1 says

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

So, if the happy & sad numbers are still part of the game state, changing
them is regulated, and the later bit that allows whatever is unprohibited
and unregulated does not apply.

II. JT argued that if the happy and sad numbers were part of the game state,
then his IRC server and the OSPD lookup server are also part of the game
state, and these can and are manipulated outside of the rules, so this
seems to lead to a contradiction.

I think this is a faulty argument, because those items clearly refer to
specific things outside the game state.  else...if's recent thesis
provides a nice argument that such things are part of the "game state"
of the nomic that is the universe, or other nomics defined within
the universe.  Rule 17 specifically recognizes the existence of things
outside the game state, including other nomics.  These external things
and nomics are not defined in the rules, simply because they can't be;
Ackanomic explicitly is defined within the greater nomic of the universe,
which defines (either fundamentally, or through other contained nomics)
those entities which rule 17 is referring to.  For example, "linguistic
interpretation" (see rule 1) is part of the nomic of the English language
(or other languages, but Ackanomic is written in English, so the part of
linguistic interpretation that matters to us is within the English
language).  E-mail addresses and messages, web URLs, and other such
things are references to the nomic of the Internet (whose rules are
the various RFCs and other documents which define how things like e-mail,
the web, domain names, etc. work).

The same is not true for the happy number and sad number.  There is no
clear referent to these terms in the parts of the universe that are
familiar to Ackanomic players, with the possible exception of the things
formerly defined by our own rules.  Does this automatically make them
a part of the Ackanomic game state?  I think so; I believe anything
that Ackanomic refers to which is not part of some other game state must
be part of our own.

As I see it, there are four possibilities.  Either the terms refer to
some extranomic entity (but in the lack of one, we reasonably assume not),
or they are undefined extranomic references which are not part of the game
state and can be changed at will (which, I believe is not the case), or
they are undefined parts of the game state, or they are still defined parts
of the game state which have the last values they had before the rule was
repealed.  "Undefined" here simply means that they do not have a value
which could be compared to a player's score.  In each of these latter two
cases, the happy and sad numbers could not be changed using Rule 1, but
in the last case, P4207 still passed with the sad number at 129 all along.
If the sad number remained undefined all along, though, I would have to say
that the Ode to Joy rule could not ever find that the player's score was
equal to the sad number, so that could never trigger and the scam only
succeeded in ridding 3 players of all their points.

In Ackanomic, when rules which define entities to exist are destroyed,
those entities are not explicitly destroyed, because Rule 7 says that
entities may only be destroyed as specified by the rules.  We don't
necessarily have the same custom for non-entities, and precisely what
happens to non-entities when they stop being defined by the rules
determines which of these cases is correct.

Only in the case where the sad number remained as a part of the game
state but no longer had a value would the scam (and P4207) fail.
To judge this CFJ, this possibility needs to be weighed against the
others I listed above.

The other part of the scam involving a win for JT fails in all the
cases where he cannot use Rule 1 to redefine the happy and sad numbers,
or, therefore, all the cases where the numbers remained part of the game
state.  This also needs to be judged, but a thorough reasoning for this
CFJ will also answer that question.

/dev/joe

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: My Judgement
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 02:19:49 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Joseph DeVincentis wrote:
> Mueller wrote:
> > There is still the issue of the modern interpretation of Rule 1 in an
> > environment where explicit entityhood is the case and what the definition
> > of the gamestate actually IS is not well known...
> 
> The interpretation of Rule 1, and how it applies to the attempted actions,
> are a large part of the point of this whole CFJ, so ignoring this does the
> CFJ no justice.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.   I would like to see the issues raised
below addressed thouroughly.   I personally don't care if the scam
succeeds or not.  I think scam (even this sort which some have labelled
old and tired) can and does raise interesting questions about the game and
how it interacts both with the player and with the universe as a whole.

> I. The happy number & sad number used to be part of the game state, when
> they were defined in the rules.  We need to find out if they still are,
> because R1 says
> 
>    "The rules and the game state may only be changed as described in
>     the rules."
> 
> So, if the happy & sad numbers are still part of the game state, changing
> them is regulated, and the later bit that allows whatever is unprohibited
> and unregulated does not apply.

[part II snipped]

This is an eloquent argument for that point of view and for them retaining
at least some identity within the game state.

> As I see it, there are four possibilities.  Either the terms refer to
> some extranomic entity (but in the lack of one, we reasonably assume not),
> or they are undefined extranomic references which are not part of the game
> state and can be changed at will (which, I believe is not the case), or
> they are undefined parts of the game state, or they are still defined parts
> of the game state which have the last values they had before the rule was
> repealed.  "Undefined" here simply means that they do not have a value
> which could be compared to a player's score.  In each of these latter two
> cases, the happy and sad numbers could not be changed using Rule 1, but
> in the last case, P4207 still passed with the sad number at 129 all along.
> If the sad number remained undefined all along, though, I would have to say
> that the Ode to Joy rule could not ever find that the player's score was
> equal to the sad number, so that could never trigger and the scam only
> succeeded in ridding 3 players of all their points.

I believe that one of the latter two cases is in fact which one we are in
now.   I further believe the case which we are in to be the one in which a
value exists for the happy and sad numbers.   The argument presented above
leads to the inclusion of them in the Ackanomic frame of reference. Taking
as a starting point the argument (and accepted game custom) that says to
pick the interpretation that makes the most sense, I would argue that
since a rule refers to their value, that they do have some value which can
be determined.  Thus it is the smallest step to see that since the value
was 129 when the rule defining them was repealed (and if we accept that
they cannot be arbitrarily changed) then nothing caused that value to
change.  IE, no rule removed that value from the game state when the
entity itself was repealed.

> In Ackanomic, when rules which define entities to exist are destroyed,
> those entities are not explicitly destroyed, because Rule 7 says that
> entities may only be destroyed as specified by the rules.  We don't
> necessarily have the same custom for non-entities, and precisely what
> happens to non-entities when they stop being defined by the rules
> determines which of these cases is correct.

At the time the rule was repealed, they were in fact not entities (unless
the fact that they existed before implicit entityhood was repealed somehow
gave them that status anyway).  However, the same logic as used above can
be used here.  When the rule was repealed, no rule caused the game state
to change to remove the pre-existing values known as the Happy Number
or the Sad Number.

> Only in the case where the sad number remained as a part of the game
> state but no longer had a value would the scam (and P4207) fail.
> To judge this CFJ, this possibility needs to be weighed against the
> others I listed above.

I do not see any way that this could have occured in conformance with the
rules and with the assumptions that they are still part of the game state.

> The other part of the scam involving a win for JT fails in all the
> cases where he cannot use Rule 1 to redefine the happy and sad numbers,
> or, therefore, all the cases where the numbers remained part of the game
> state.  This also needs to be judged, but a thorough reasoning for this
> CFJ will also answer that question.

This I completely agree with.

--Dragon Mage

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

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

From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Making Good On Promises
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 02:20:12 -0400 (EDT)

JT wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jun 1999, JT wrote:
>> I issue the following Imperial Dictate as delimited by CLEANUP
>> CLEANUP
>
>> CLEANUP
>
>I censor this Imperial dictate and issue the following one in its stead.
>
>I issue the following Imperial Dictate as delimited by CLEANUP
>CLEANUP
>The gamestate is changed such that the players legally able to take the
>Ackanomic Names of Studge, Trent and JT have their voting characteristics
>set to 5.
>In addition, The players legally able to take the Ackanomic Names of
>Studge, Trent and JT have their Mannna set to 4000.
>
>(no fair keeping the ill-gotten gains)
>CLEANUP

I concur.

Studge

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

From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Another Argument Against the Scam
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:38:51 -0400 (EDT)

From Rule 7-16:

Any entity which is in the Library may play any Esoteric Song as a public
action. To do so, that entity must state the name of the Song it wishes to
play and place either an amount of A$ equal to the Song's Cost or a single
Token into the banna-shaped slot on the ASS's control panel. This action
fails if the entity does not own sufficient A$, or has no Tokens. 

Note carefully the last sentence.

Also note the following aspect of Esoteric Songs:

e) Cost: The amount of A$ which must be placed in the banna-shaped slot in
the ASS' control panel to play this Song. If the Cost is not specified, it
defaults to Infinite; i.e., the Song cannot be purchased with A$ as
described above. 

No Cost is specified for Ode to Joy.

T. T. Ren, who attempted to play Ode to Joy, had a Token, but did not have
an Infinite amount of A$.

Therefore, he did not own sufficient A$ to play the song.

The last sentence of the first quoted paragraph above indicates that
either lack of money or lack of tokens is a sufficient reason for the song
to fail.  It makes no mention of what method of payment is suggested,
merely requiring that both possible methods of payment be possible.

So I would claim that Ode to Joy was never played, and hence the scam
failed.

Yours,
Slakko

-- 
Duncan C. Richer aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother | Queens' College
http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/    Ackanomic     | U. of Cambridge
                    Web-Harfer, Map-Harfer, Justice | 2nd Year PhD(PMa)

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

From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another Argument Against the Scam
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:47:04 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Duncan Richer wrote:

> >From Rule 7-16:
> 
> Any entity which is in the Library may play any Esoteric Song as a public
> action. To do so, that entity must state the name of the Song it wishes to
> play and place either an amount of A$ equal to the Song's Cost or a single
> Token into the banna-shaped slot on the ASS's control panel. This action
> fails if the entity does not own sufficient A$, or has no Tokens. 
> 
> Note carefully the last sentence.
> 
> Also note the following aspect of Esoteric Songs:
> 
> e) Cost: The amount of A$ which must be placed in the banna-shaped slot in
> the ASS' control panel to play this Song. If the Cost is not specified, it
> defaults to Infinite; i.e., the Song cannot be purchased with A$ as
> described above. 
> 
> No Cost is specified for Ode to Joy.

Also note that this section is in Rule 7-16, but follows the earlier
quoted paragraph.  It therefore takes precedence over it by default.  It
indicates that the cost is the amount of A$ which _must_ be placed in the
banna-shaped slot to play this Song.  Ai! Pedrito! did not put this many
A$ into the slot (it was impossible to), and hence the Song was not
played.

-- 
Duncan C. Richer aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother | Queens' College
http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/    Ackanomic     | U. of Cambridge
                    Web-Harfer, Map-Harfer, Justice | 2nd Year PhD(PMa)

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another Argument Against the Scam
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:56:32 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Duncan Richer wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Duncan Richer wrote:
> > >From Rule 7-16:
> > 
> > Any entity which is in the Library may play any Esoteric Song as a public
> > action. To do so, that entity must state the name of the Song it wishes to
> > play and place either an amount of A$ equal to the Song's Cost or a single
> > Token into the banna-shaped slot on the ASS's control panel. This action
> > fails if the entity does not own sufficient A$, or has no Tokens. 
> > 
> > Note carefully the last sentence.
> > 
> > Also note the following aspect of Esoteric Songs:
> > 
> > e) Cost: The amount of A$ which must be placed in the banna-shaped slot in
> > the ASS' control panel to play this Song. If the Cost is not specified, it
> > defaults to Infinite; i.e., the Song cannot be purchased with A$ as
> > described above. 
> > 
> > No Cost is specified for Ode to Joy.
> 
> Also note that this section is in Rule 7-16, but follows the earlier
> quoted paragraph.  It therefore takes precedence over it by default.  It
> indicates that the cost is the amount of A$ which _must_ be placed in the
> banna-shaped slot to play this Song.  Ai! Pedrito! did not put this many
> A$ into the slot (it was impossible to), and hence the Song was not
> played.

No, the rule gives two options for playing a song, and the fact that a
cost is not specified nullifies only one of those options.  The placing of
an ASS token into the banna shaped slot is still legal.

The previous sentance defines criteria for how each of the two individual
payment options can fail.  You are arguing an untenable and nonsensical
position as game custom insists the interpretation to take is the one that
makes the game consistant.   Since there is an alternative interpretation,
that the english shorthand of specifying the two possible modes of failure
(since the previous sentance says either A$ OR token (not both)) one for
each of the two possible modes of failure, it is illogical to assume that
the next sentance be taken out of context and assume it to be requiring
both.

This particular issue of context *has* been hashed out completely in
previous CFJs, and I suggest that you go research them (no, I don't have
the numbers handy).

--JT

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

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

From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another Argument Against the Scam
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 04:16:54 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, JT wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> No, the rule gives two options for playing a song, and the fact that a
> cost is not specified nullifies only one of those options.  The placing of
> an ASS token into the banna shaped slot is still legal.
> 
> The previous sentance defines criteria for how each of the two individual
> payment options can fail.  You are arguing an untenable and nonsensical
> position as game custom insists the interpretation to take is the one that
> makes the game consistant.   Since there is an alternative interpretation,
> that the english shorthand of specifying the two possible modes of failure
> (since the previous sentance says either A$ OR token (not both)) one for
> each of the two possible modes of failure, it is illogical to assume that
> the next sentance be taken out of context and assume it to be requiring
> both.

The previous sentence uses "either ... or" construction.
The sentence I pointed out uses "or" construction.
If it used "either ... or" construction, or if it used "and" construction,
then I would have no quibble.  Both of those clearly mean that provided
at least one payment method is possible, then payment can work.
However, the "either" was excluded.  Your contextual reading (and yes,
this can be true in English) means that "or" and "and" are equivalent
words to use.

Now, if "or" and "and" mean the same thing, how do you say "or" in its
strict sense?  (Suppose I wanted to in an amendment to the proposal).

-- 
Duncan C. Richer aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother | Queens' College
http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/    Ackanomic     | U. of Cambridge
                    Web-Harfer, Map-Harfer, Justice | 2nd Year PhD(PMa)

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

From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: MTG*: *ping*
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:07:33 -0400 (EDT)

Thierry Joffrain wrote:
> 
> >I bid A$25 for an 'e'.
> 
> This wins. The truth is:
> 
> IF AND ONLY IF today * FEE* ***E **E ******E **** ****, ** **** ** **** ****,
> THEN the Machine That Goes *ping* shall go *ping*.

If and only if today I feel like the machine will ping, it will do just
that?

Laa Laa, tentative student of ping.

-- 
Tom "I am not a walrus" Walmsley. mailto:[email-masked]
http://website.lineone.net/~t.walmsley/index.html ICQ: 2925739
"Among wizards?" said Ridcully. "Mister Stibbons, unusual behaviour is
perfectly ordinary for wizards." - Terry Pratchet, The Last Continent

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

From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: MTG*: *ping*
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:32:21 -0400 (EDT)

>If and only if today I feel like the machine will ping, it will do just
>that?

Nope. Sorry. Duck doesn't come down.

CnH

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

From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: My Judgement
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:35:56 -0400 (EDT)

/dev/joe put it rather nicely, and I agree with JT that the Happy and Sad
numbers were defined parts of the game state, with the values they had at
the time that their rule was repealed.  They could not, therefore, be
manipulated as was attempted.  If I am following this correctly, then
that leaves Studge and Ai! Pedrito with zero points and between zero and nine
A$, having each converted all his points to A$ and then as many of his A$ as
possible to manna.  Neither had sufficient manna (I believe) to cast the
vote he attempted to cast on P4207.

I am inclined to agree with Ai! Pedrito, however, about the effects of
JT's actions -- that is, he was unable to reduce his score to 125 and
ran the Treasury out of money in the attempt.  I observe, moreover, that
he therefore also ran all On Ice players out of money, since the Treasury
takes money from them when it is out.

It would appear that JT still managed to squeak P4207 through with his
vote.  I point out, though, that far from returning ill-gotten gains
with their edict, Studge and Ai! Pedrito are giving themselves big
manna bonuses.  Not that there is necessarilly any major problem with
that (a scam is a scam), but lets not be taken in by dictatorial
propoganda.  I also note that JT has now far surpassed me as the richest
Ackazen, even if he did do it on the backs of poor, innocent, frozen
players -- some of them our most honored elders.  Don't think too badly
of him, fellow Ackazens.

ThinMan

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

From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: My Judgement
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:00:41 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, John Bollinger wrote:

> 
> /dev/joe put it rather nicely, and I agree with JT that the Happy and Sad
> numbers were defined parts of the game state, with the values they had at
> the time that their rule was repealed.  They could not, therefore, be

I agree with everything ThinMan has said, with the possible exception of
the above about the values of the Happy and Sad numbers.  

I think it -is- reasonable to say that the value of the Happy and Sad
numbers are exactly as they were when the rules which defined their value
was repealed.  

I think it is also reasonable to say that they now have NO defined value.
[Note that this interpretation would cause ALL cases of the scam to fail.]
My interpretation of their value would depend on how the values themselves
were defined.  Were they dynamically refigured whenever referenced, or did
they have a value which was reported and 'saved off' somewhere?

I know this sounds like over-lawyering (and coming from me!), but I think
it is an interesting question, so I'll waste my hot air on it.

We had a discussion on IRC about the meaning of game state and what could
be considered part of it.  My example below flows from that ddiscussion.
I apologize, in advance, if I skim over some details which seem clear to
me having been there.

The rules define a method for determining if a word is in the official
Acaknomic lexicon.  The CONTENTS of the lexicon itself are subject to
change by extranomic forces.  But our method of referencing the lexicon is
rule-defined.  When it is required that a determination be made if a wor
dis int he lexicon, we access the lexicon via rule-defined methods and
make our determination.  

Now say we removed from the ruleset the interface (thanks, rufus!) to the
Acaknomic lexicon, but still were required to reference it to make game
state determinations.

What would be the result?  Would the Ackanomic lexicon be frozen with the
values which were contained in those files and databases at the moment we
repealed the rule?  Or would we have a situation wherein we are unable to
detemrine which words are in the lexicon?

I tend to think the latter.  

That's why it is important to me, somehow, to know HOW the Sad Number was
defined.  If it was a dynamic value which was regenerated or refigured at
every reference to it.. is it now indeterminate?

Just some random thoughts.  I'm not going to force this issue with endless
appeals and CFJs.

IB

 

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

From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: MTG*: *ping*
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:06:03 -0400 (EDT)

Today is Wednesday, the 23th day of June, and the Machine That Goes *ping*
Has Gone *ping* today. Since I have been scholar, the Machine has gone
*ping* 13 times.

CnH

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another Argument Against the Scam
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:37:00 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Duncan Richer wrote:
> The previous sentence uses "either ... or" construction.
> The sentence I pointed out uses "or" construction.
> If it used "either ... or" construction, or if it used "and" construction,
> then I would have no quibble.  Both of those clearly mean that provided
> at least one payment method is possible, then payment can work.
> However, the "either" was excluded.  Your contextual reading (and yes,
> this can be true in English) means that "or" and "and" are equivalent
> words to use.
> 
> Now, if "or" and "and" mean the same thing, how do you say "or" in its
> strict sense?  (Suppose I wanted to in an amendment to the proposal).

You have to depend on context to disambiguate between the two.   You can
also say 'strictly either', or use 'either or' consistantly.

My point was that English *IS* an imprecise language, and thus context
must be used to disambiguate.   Ackan game custom has always been that
in the event of two valid readings (to which you admitted above) the
reading that is the most consistant with the context in which it is placed
holds sway.

The sentance you quoted is completely dependant upon the preceding
construct which bifurcates the possible choices into two distinct and
seperate paths.   Given that bifurcation, it is completely illogical to
read the next sentance without it (or any further part of that rule).

--Dragon Mage

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

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: My Judgement
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:50:58 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, John Bollinger wrote:
> It would appear that JT still managed to squeak P4207 through with his
> vote.  I point out, though, that far from returning ill-gotten gains
> with their edict, Studge and Ai! Pedrito are giving themselves big
> manna bonuses.  Not that there is necessarilly any major problem with
> that (a scam is a scam), but lets not be taken in by dictatorial
> propoganda.  I also note that JT has now far surpassed me as the richest
> Ackazen, even if he did do it on the backs of poor, innocent, frozen
> players -- some of them our most honored elders.  Don't think too badly
> of him, fellow Ackazens.

Actually, I think most of that money has gone back to the treasury by now,
and if it hasn't, it will be returned, as I honestly have no need for it.
When I'd written the CLEANUP edict, I had done so under the impression
that all of us had in fact succeeded and that Studge had ended up with
1,000,000,000 manna (or there abouts) as well as a decently sized voting
characteristic.   I did feel we should gain something for having
perpetuated the scam, so left us with VC's of 5 and a decent but not
exorbitant amount of mannna.  I also don't really see any reason to change
it at this juncture.

As for the Icy Players, well, if the financier will (assuming it is
finally determined that what ThinMan described occured), I will happily
return to them any money that they might have lost through my
machinations.

--Dragon Mage.

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

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: My Judgement
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:00:18 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Matt Miller wrote:
> I think it -is- reasonable to say that the value of the Happy and Sad
> numbers are exactly as they were when the rules which defined their value
> was repealed.  

I agree here.

> I think it is also reasonable to say that they now have NO defined value.
> [Note that this interpretation would cause ALL cases of the scam to fail.]
> My interpretation of their value would depend on how the values themselves
> were defined.  Were they dynamically refigured whenever referenced, or did
> they have a value which was reported and 'saved off' somewhere?

I disagree with this, and will explain below.

> We had a discussion on IRC about the meaning of game state and what could
> be considered part of it.  My example below flows from that ddiscussion.
> I apologize, in advance, if I skim over some details which seem clear to
> me having been there.
> 
> The rules define a method for determining if a word is in the official
> Acaknomic lexicon.  The CONTENTS of the lexicon itself are subject to
> change by extranomic forces.  But our method of referencing the lexicon is
> rule-defined.  When it is required that a determination be made if a wor
> dis int he lexicon, we access the lexicon via rule-defined methods and
> make our determination.  

The consensus on this discussion (maybe after you left) was that the game
state actually contained a reference to the SERVER, not the CONTENTS.

> Now say we removed from the ruleset the interface (thanks, rufus!) to the
> Acaknomic lexicon, but still were required to reference it to make game
> state determinations.

We still could since the game state would maintain that reference to the
server, and we could thus continue to use that server.   Should that
server then go away, the game state (barring any new rules) would be such
that we would then not be able to check through that server (ie, the game
state would still contain a reference, it just would no longer be valid).

Note that this reasoning requires no changing to the game state, and the
VALUE stored with each 'object' (for lack of a better word) in the game
state stays consistant and persistant.

> That's why it is important to me, somehow, to know HOW the Sad Number was
> defined.  If it was a dynamic value which was regenerated or refigured at
> every reference to it.. is it now indeterminate?

I don't think it is, nor is the server issue above.   I believe they are
both static references with defined values.  In the happy/sad number case
those values are what they were when they were repealed.   In the case
of the OSPD server it is 'telnet://brauer.math.utoronto.ca:7777' and
for the Unabridged dictionary it is
'ftp://sable.ox.ac.uk/pub/wordlists/dictionaries/Unabr.dict.gz'

> Just some random thoughts.  I'm not going to force this issue with endless
> appeals and CFJs.

And just my random thoughts in return.

--Dragon Mage

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

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: An End of an Era
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:19:27 -0400 (EDT)

I create the following Imperial Edict as delimited by IMPERIUM_ENDING
IMPERIUM_ENDING
Create a new rule numbered 13-4 titled 'Pax Imperium' with the following
text as delimited by IMPERIUM_RULES
IMPERIUM_RULES
The Imperium once ruled Ackanomic.

Those players who are legally able to assume the Ackanomic Names of JT,
Studge, or Trent are Imperial Governors (retired).   No other players
and no non-players are Imperial Governors (retired).

The Coliseum is a Sumptuous Building located in the Wilds of Ackanomic
equidistant from both the Town and the City.  It is a common location.
Around the perimeter of the Coliseum are statues of ever player (or
the members of any group) who have ever ruled Ackanomic.

Any Imperial Governor (retired) is Sheltered when they are at the
Coliseum.  No other players are Sheltered there. (Hey, the box seats have
to be good for something :).

On the first Sunday of every month, Gladitorial Games are started at the
Coliseum.  If there are less than two players eligible to participate in
the Gladitorial Games, then this paragraph repeals itself.  When Gladitorial
Games start, a majority of the Active Players who are Imperial Governors
(retired) select a game from among the Games and Contests defined by the
rules which are playable by two players.  Should no Game or Contest be
defined, or if there are no Active Players who are Imperial Governors then
no games will be held during that month.  Once the game is chosen, two
Gladiators are chosen.  Should insufficient players volunteer, Gladiators
will be chosen randomly from all eligible active players.  Players with
two Laurel Wreaths (of any color) are ineligible to participate.  The game
is then played by the two Gladiators as if it were a Duel (with all attendant
penalties and rewards).  One of the Imperial Governors (retired) will be
the Referee should one be required (which one decided on amongst the Imperial
Governors (retired)).  At the end of the Duel, the winner is given a Green
Laurel Wreath and loses a Black Mark (if e has any) in addition to the
standard rewards for winning a Duel, and the loser is given a Black Mark
in addition to the standard penalties for losing a Duel.  

Laurel Wreaths are ownable, non-tradeable Entities which are manufactured
in the colors of Green and Gold.  They have no special game effect, but
their owner should be regarded with respect.

Black Marks are ownable, non-tradeable Entities.  Players who own Black
Marks should feel ashamed.
IMPERIUM_RULES

Each Imperial Governor Retired is given two Gold Laurel Wreaths.

All text in rule one that occurs after "This rule has precedence over all
other rules" is removed.
IMPERIUM_ENDING

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

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

From: "Gavin Logan" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Speaker Hearing
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 17:52:23 -0400 (EDT)

Proposal 4203 called a hearing to determine the nature of the office of
Speaker. The appropriate responses are

1) "El Presidente?  E's just a puppet head!" [political]

and

2) "It's Good to be the King" [functional]

This is a Serious Hearing. Reply to cast your vote.

King Felix
(Count Tabula)

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

From: "Gavin Logan" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Voting players
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 17:52:24 -0400 (EDT)

>Here is my record of Voting players.
>rufus, and anybody else who's tracking this, let me know if you
>have any discrepancies:
>

This list seems to be correct.

King Felix
(keeping track of this)

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

From: "Gavin Logan" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RuneMaker (Slakko)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 17:52:24 -0400 (EDT)

The results of the RuneMaker elections are as follows:

Ai! Pedrito!:
Ai! Pedrito!
K 2
Studge

Slakko:
Burn the Witch
Dragon Mage
ThinMan
Slakko

King Felix:
King Felix
IdiotBoy

Therefore, Slakko is the new RuneMaker. Go get 'em tiger.

King Felix
(Count Tabula)

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

From: "Gavin Logan" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: new player (k 2) (slakko)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 17:52:40 -0400 (EDT)

>> 4) text of or link to the recent thesis on Inter-nomic Relations.

This can be found on my Dean page accessible from the main website.

King Felix

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

From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another Argument Against the Scam
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 18:28:43 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, JT wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Duncan Richer wrote:
> > The previous sentence uses "either ... or" construction.
> > The sentence I pointed out uses "or" construction.
> > If it used "either ... or" construction, or if it used "and" construction,
> > then I would have no quibble.  Both of those clearly mean that provided
> > at least one payment method is possible, then payment can work.
> > However, the "either" was excluded.  Your contextual reading (and yes,
> > this can be true in English) means that "or" and "and" are equivalent
> > words to use.
> > 
> > Now, if "or" and "and" mean the same thing, how do you say "or" in its
> > strict sense?  (Suppose I wanted to in an amendment to the proposal).
> 
> You have to depend on context to disambiguate between the two.   You can
> also say 'strictly either', or use 'either or' consistantly.
> 
> My point was that English *IS* an imprecise language, and thus context
> must be used to disambiguate.   Ackan game custom has always been that
> in the event of two valid readings (to which you admitted above) the
> reading that is the most consistant with the context in which it is placed
> holds sway.

Granting this, I must say that Slakko's interpertation is the only one that 
makes sense.  The previous sentance contains an either...or, so we know that
in this context a bare or construct is constrained to be an exclusive or.  
To claim otherwise is to treat the context inconsistantly.

rufus

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another Argument Against the Scam
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 19:24:45 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, David Scheidt wrote:
> > You have to depend on context to disambiguate between the two.   You can
> > also say 'strictly either', or use 'either or' consistantly.
> > 
> > My point was that English *IS* an imprecise language, and thus context
> > must be used to disambiguate.   Ackan game custom has always been that
> > in the event of two valid readings (to which you admitted above) the
> > reading that is the most consistant with the context in which it is placed
> > holds sway.
> 
> Granting this, I must say that Slakko's interpertation is the only one that 
> makes sense.  The previous sentance contains an either...or, so we know that
> in this context a bare or construct is constrained to be an exclusive or.  
> To claim otherwise is to treat the context inconsistantly.

That's Bull rufus.  The first sentance sets up a dichotomy, it is
nonsensical to read the second sentance as requiring both of mutually
exclusive options, and you and I and everyone else knows it.

--Dragon Mage

-- 
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ 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 V4 #166
*******************************