Subject: ackanomic Digest V4 #170
From: [email-masked]
To: ackanomic digest users <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 00:00:01 -400 (EDT)

ackanomic Digest	Saturday, June 26 1999	Volume: 04  Issue: 170

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

From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: My Judgement
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 06:19:49 -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.
> 
> 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.

When the rule defining them was repealed, no rule removed them from the
game state.  No rule exists that would automatically remove them from the
game state, unless only entities may be part of the game state.  Nowhere
is that indicated in the rules, so I must assume that the Sad and Happy
Numbers are still part of the game state.

So the Magic Number manipulation definitely fails.

> 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.

-- 
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: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Making Good On Promises
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 10:42:37 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole wrote:

> Vynd receives...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A NEW CAR!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I create a trinket named "Porsche Carrera" and valued at A$100 with the
> following description:
> "A brand new Porsche, red, with silver trim, and amber and azure
> highlights.  The interior leather is a sort of tannish umber, with cream
> highlights.  The dashboard is brown.  The rearview mirror is gold plated,
> and there are fuzzy dice -- one yellow with purple spots and one auburn
> with coral spots, connected by an alabaster thread hanging over it.  The
> windshield is pale ultramarine, and light turquoise.  The stick is dark
> grey, but the knob is ivory, with chartreuse lettering.  The brights are
> pretty much white, but the running lights are a beautiful cyan, and the
> brake lights are, of course, ruby.  The interior (dashboard) lights are
> emerald and magenta -- the speedometer needle lights up all topaz against a
> lavender-teal background.  The keys are bronze and blue, with maroon
> plastic key-covers and an indigo remote lock release. The interior of the
> trunk is burgundy.  The radio is painted a slightly gaudy murrey, and the
> floor mats are a somewhat unattractive khaki with a hazel tinge that almost
> tends toward puce.  The inside of the glove compartment is peach, except
> for one part where the painting must have missed a spot or something
> because it is ochre.  The driver's and passenger's mirror covers are
> cerulean with a splash of fuchsia and a crimson line down the edge.  The
> windshield wipers are inexplicably pink, and the driver's manual is mauve.
> The tires are bright orange, and the hubcaps are an amethyst that pretty
> much classes with the rest of the exterior of the car.  Under the hood, the
> battery is green with scarlet writing, the oil compartment cap is violet
> with a viridian arrow explaining which way to turn it, and most of the rest
> of the engine is painted a hideous sienna, with a spot here and there of
> aquamarine.  The window switches are carnelian, and the seat adjust
> switches are vermillion.  The drink holder is salmon, and the air
> conditioning markings are harf.  Both bumpers are black."
> I give this to Vynd, along with a dirty look.
> 

I thank EAP for the car. I refuse to accept the dirty look, however. :)

Vynd

[email-masked]

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

From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: MTG*: *ping*
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 15:50:07 -0400 (EDT)

Today is Saturday, the 26th day of June, and the Machine That Goes *ping*
Has Gone *ping* today. Since I have been scholar, the Machine has gone
*ping* 15 times.

CnH

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

From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 722 (FALSE)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 15:58:08 -0400 (EDT)

Ooh, this brings back memories...looks as if people are still just as
bad at delimitting their reasoning now as they were when I was CotC...

Acting CotC, Laa Laa.

--------------------------------------
Call for Judgement 722 - June 22, 1999

Subject: Looks Vaguely Familiar

Initiator: else...if

Judge: Studge

Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

        Proposal 4207 was rejected.

Initiator's Reasoning:

        I presume (as /dev/joe will doubtless confirm or disprove later)
that the last minute voting by Dragon Mage and AiPedrito! would have
been sufficient to pass Proposal 2407.  Regardless, I deny that Dragon
Mage, AiPedrito!, and Studge were able to raise their characteristics as
they attempted.

        Their claim rests the permissibility of the unrestricted.  The
relevant excerpt:

        Whatever is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by the rules,
however, is permitted and unregulated.  [Rule 1]

        This comes down to the classic question of interpreting rule 1,
a problem which was resolved by CFJ 113 when Ackanomic was only a few
weeks old.  To quote the initiators reasoning, to which the judge agreed
in full;

"This essentially comes down to an interpretation of Rule 115. I claim
that the correct interpretation, the one that we all share, is the
following: You can do anything you want if the rules have nothing to say
on the issue. For example, I could say that I am officially the Big
Herring, because the rules are completely silent on this issue. However,
I could not declare that instead of using ordinal numbers in base 10, we
would be using ordinal numbers in base 3. This is illegal
because while the rules do not expressly forbid this specific action,
there is a rule concerning the numbering of proposals (Rule 642) and
thus I cannot arbitrarily adjust this, even though the said rule does
not discuss this issue specifically."

        The text of Rule 115 survives, unchanged in rule 1 today.  Rule
1 permits not the unprohibited, but the un*regulated*.  The sad and
happy numbers are regulated by the rules, and therefore can not be
arbitrarily altered by the scamsters.

        This has continued to be the Ackan standard in the almost three
and a half years since CFJ 113.  Let me also note Malenkai's Supreme
Court reasoning on CFJ 178, the initiator's and judge's reasoning on CFJ
92.9+2.718i, the judge's reasoning on CFJ 595, judge's reasoning on CFJ
719 and probably countless others.

Judge's 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.

-- 
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: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Summarizer (BLMP)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 15:58:09 -0400 (EDT)

The following players nominated themselves for the position of
Summarizer (sic):

Dragon Mage
/dev/joe
Laa Laa
Ai! Pedrito! (or whatever e's called now)
Blest Lax Monk Pal
K 2

After a fair bit of umming and ahing I've decided to give the position
to Blest Lax Monk Pal.

Laa Laa, President.

-- 
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: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Stripe
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 15:58:21 -0400 (EDT)

According to my top secret informant the acceptance of P4212 caused K 2
to reach a blue cross rank of 160, so I now award em a silver stripe.
Well done that entity!

Laa Laa, President.

-- 
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: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 180 (FALSE)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 15:58:22 -0400 (EDT)

With appologies for the shoddy formatting due to cut and pasting, and
also for the extreme lateness, as I am a justice too :-).

Laa Laa, acting CotC, Justice.

---------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 180 - February 21, 1999
Subject: JTJTJTJTJTJT
Initiator: K 2
Judge: IdiotBoy
Judgement: TRUE
Appellant: /dev/joe
1st Cortex: /dev/cortex (/dev/joe and LaaLaa) (declined by /dev/joe)
2nd Cortex: Amicus Draconis (JT and Slakko)
Judgement: FALSE
Appellant: else...if
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:
JT has committed the Crime of Being Annoying.

Reasoning:
JT has submitted 6 _identical_ proposals to the public forum, the sole
purpose of the multiple copies is to prevent interested players from
presenting a united front. This is SPAM in rhymes with SCAM and it is
ANNOYING!

Suggested Penalty
One week in gaol [Although it is unlikely to prevent em from voting on
the proposals, the more appropriate punishment of a Mannna deduction is
not possible].

Judge's Reasoning:  Well, ja.

Actual Penalty:
SENTENCE of 7 days in Gaol.
TRASNFERENCE of an amount of A$ equal to the SHF from JT to the
initiator
of this CFCJ.

Appellant's Reasoning:
CFCJ 172 established that submitting a number of proposals more than
twice what the accused submitted is not Being Annoying.  Also, e only
submitted 5 proposals.

Bronze Torch Reasoning (K 2):
CFCJ 172 may have established that submitting 12 proposals (3360, 3364,
3365,
3372-3381) is not Annoying, however, there are a certain number of
differences between that event and the one(s) currently under scrutiny,
specifically CFCJ dealt with 12 substantially different proposals, while
this situation involves identical proposals, the submission of which was
apparently intentional (no attempt has been made to retract the
superfluous
proposals and the proposals in
question are also identical to an earlier sequence made by /dev/joe
(indicating
at least some premeditation)).

[It is Annoying to be] Pursuing a game strategy... causing excessive
amounts of messages...

Given that the submission of 5 copies was not an accident (i.e. the
defendant was actively pursuing this particular game strategy), the
remaining question is - was the submission of 5 copies an excessive
number
of messages?. Rule 2 permits a single accepted proposal to have an
effect;
it doesn't require that 5 identical proposals to be accepted before any
of
them to have an effect - it follows that the submission of a single copy
of
a proposal is sufficient (in the absence of extraordinary circumstance).
4
extra copies of a proposal. Deliberate - Yes. Excessive -Yes. Annoying?

Cortex's Reasoning:

The Rule in question has already been quoted, but an important part of
the
meaning ignored.  The rule says causing "excessive amounts of messages",
not "excessive messages".  Previous CFCJs have ruled that 12 proposals
being sent almost at the same time does not constitute an offence under
this class of annoyances.  Therefore, 5 proposals, none of which were
longer than the longest of the 12 proposals submitted earlier, cannot be
"excessive amounts" of messages, regardless of their semantic content.

We fine the original Judge 10 points for not reading the relevant rule
sufficiently carefully.

Appellant's Reasoning:

        Rather than repeat my reasoning, I merely not that it is
identical
to what I submitted for CFCJ 179.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

It is the court's opinion that what constitutes an 'excessive amount of
messages' can not be decided solely on the number of messages involved.
Rule 9-4 is worded in such a way that the only acceptable method of
determining if a particular group of messages is an "excessive amount"
is according to each player's opinion [The rule even states this,
although in a way that has no semantic meaning] .

However, the majority of the court also feels that the contents of the
messages should be as small a factor as possible in deciding whether or
not they are considered excessive, as this could lead to calls of
Annoyance based solely on a person's disagreement with the speech of
another.

It is therefore the opinion of the majority of the supreme court (JT,
Slakko, /dev/joe and Laa Laa) that the messages in question were not
excessive. One justice (K 2) was in disagreement.

The supreme court upholds the verdict (FALSE) and fines the appellant 1
point.

-- 
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: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 179 (FALSE)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 15:58:33 -0400 (EDT)

With appologies for the shoddy formatting due to cut and pasting, and
also for the extreme lateness, as I am a justice too :-).

Laa Laa, acting CotC, Justice.

---------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 179 - February 21, 1999

Subject: /dev/joe/dev/joe/dev/joe/dev/joe/dev/joe

Initiator: K 2

Judge: Wild Card

Judgement: TRUE

Appellant: JT

1st Cortex: Amicus Draconis (JT and Slakko) (declined by JT)

2nd Cortex: /dev/cortex (/dev/joe and LaaLaa)

Judgement: FALSE

Appellant: else...if

Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

/dev/joe has committed the Crime of Being Annoying.

Reasoning:

/dev/joe has submitted 5 _identical_ proposals to the public forum,
the

sole purpose of the multiple copies is to prevent interested players

from presenting a united front. This is SPAM in rhymes with SCAM and
it

is ANNOYING!

Suggested Penalty

One week in gaol [Although it is unlikely to prevent em from voting on

the proposals, the more appropriate punishment of a Mannna deduction
is

not possible].

Judge's Reasoning:

The Initiator is correct in every respect.

Actual Penalty:

One week on gaol.

Appellant's Reasoning:

CFCJ 172 established that 12 proposals from a single player in a short
span of time was not annoying.  The fact that this was done with only 5
proposal (regardless of the content of the proposals) makes this much
less of an offense.  Since this does not rise to the level of annoying
as set forth in that CFCJ, this should not have been judged as
annoying.

There are also other suitable remedies within the rules to punish
percieved abuses of percieved loopholes within the rules, namely scam
hunts, and imho, that remedy should have been used in place.

Bronze Torch Reasoning (K 2):

I thought my earlier Bronze Torch reasoning addressed this.

Annoying is really a question of what constitutes excessive. 12
different

proposals is not excessive - this is what CFCJ 172 found. The question
now is -

Does 5 identical proposals, which were also identical to the five
proposals

submitted just before them as well, constitute "excessive". If one
proposal

passes it has an effect, a player hardly need submit 5 identical
proposals

within infinitesimal of one another, unless they are pursuing a
particular game

strategy.... 5 proposals instead of 1 makes it excessive.

This is not a scam this is Annoying.

Cortex's Reasoning:

The Rule in question has already been quoted, but an important part of
the

meaning ignored.  The rule says causing "excessive amounts of
messages",

not "excessive messages".  Previous CFCJs have ruled that 12 proposals

being sent almost at the same time does not constitute an offence
under

this class of annoyances.  Therefore, 5 proposals, none of which were

longer than the longest of the 12 proposals submitted earlier, cannot
be

"excessive amounts" of messages, regardless of their semantic content.

We fine the original Judge 10 points for not reading the relevant rule

sufficiently carefully.

Appellant's Reasoning:

        Rule 9-4 does not read "large amounts of messages," but
"*excessive
amounts of messages" (emphasis mine).  The fundemental difference
between CFCJ 179/180 and CFCJ 172 is the word "excessive."  Webster
defines excessive as "Characterized by, or exhibiting, excess;
overmuch".  In order to be annoying, the amount of information sent
must be substantially out of alignment with the actual content.  In
CFCJ 172, although there were a substantial number of proposals, they
were not excessive--they were several independant legitimate proposals.
 On the other hand the actions of JT and /dev/joe in 179/180 were a
conspiracy to create a number of messages which failed to further the
game of Ackanomic in any way.  They served no legal, political, social,
conceptual, or entertaining purpose.  They were not harfy; they were
not constructive; they were, most fundementally, an utter waste and
abuse.  This is exactly the sort of thing Annoying was instituted to
create.

        Slakko's reasoning merits response, since it is legitimate
(although
incorrect.)  Both Cortices have adopted Slakko's reasoning that the
word "amounts" means that the messages must be sufficiently long in
order to be annoying.  The simplest refutation would be the sending to
the mail list of 10 

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

It is the court's opinion that what constitutes an 'excessive amount of
messages' can not be decided solely on the number of messages involved.
Rule 9-4 is worded in such a way that the only acceptable method of
determining if a particular group of messages is an "excessive amount"
is according to each player's opinion [The rule even states this,
although in a way that has no semantic meaning] .

However, the majority of the court also feels that the contents of the
messages should be as small a factor as possible in deciding whether or
not they are considered excessive, as this could lead to calls of
Annoyance based solely on a person's disagreement with the speech of
another.

It is therefore the opinion of the majority of the supreme court (JT,
Slakko, /dev/joe and Laa Laa) that the messages in question were not
excessive. One justice (K 2) was in disagreement.

The supreme court upholds the verdict (FALSE) and fines the appellant 1
point.

-- 
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: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Making Good On Promises
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 15:58:35 -0400 (EDT)

Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole wrote:

[snip]

> I lower my voting characteristic by 1 in exchange for A$2000.
> 
> I concur with this Dictate.  It occurs.
> 
> Now, before you get all fired up about how I'm scamming the scam, read the
> rest of my message and see what I do with the money.

[big snip]

I'm not going to get angry about this because it isn't worth it, but
suffice to say, I don't approve of this for several reasons:

1. If we want to develop any sort of worthwhile trade (which I
personally think could be quite fun) then having the market flooded with
A$ is very dull, creates inflation (of a sort) and just maes the gap
between the rich and the poor bigger, and makes things like payments for
officers less worthwhile.

2. You said you would give a gift to those who replied to your survey so
you should. By giving gifts out of scam money it is no better than
keeping the money for yourself. And judging by your warning I think
you'd figured out that that wasn't really on. As I've said before.
Emporerhood is dull and cliched now. It is even duller and more
frustrating if you just use it to unilaterally create currency for no
apparent reason.

I do have other reasons fornot liking it but they're only petty so I
will stop at those two.

Laa Laa, muttering something about "what happened to the fun..."

-- 
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: "Gavin Logan" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 722 (Studge) (FALSE)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:02:04 -0400 (EDT)

Studge has judged this FALSE. Apologies for the delay.

Call for Judgement 722 - June 22, 1999
Subject: Looks Vaguely Familiar
Initiator: else...if
Judge: Studge
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:
Proposal 4207 was rejected.

Initiator's Reasoning:
I presume (as /dev/joe will doubtless confirm or disprove later) that
the last minute voting by Dragon Mage and AiPedrito! would have been
sufficient to pass Proposal 2407.  Regardless, I deny that Dragon Mage,
AiPedrito!, and Studge were able to raise their characteristics as they
attempted.

Their claim rests the permissibility of the unrestricted.  The
relevant excerpt:

Whatever is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by the rules,
however, is permitted and unregulated.  [Rule 1]

This comes down to the classic question of interpreting rule 1, a
problem which was resolved by CFJ 113 when Ackanomic was only a few
weeks old.  To quote the initiators reasoning, to which the judge
agreed in full;

"This essentially comes down to an interpretation of Rule 115. I claim
that the correct interpretation, the one that we all share, is the
following: You can do anything you want if the rules have nothing to
say on the issue. For example, I could say that I am officially the Big
Herring, because the rules are completely silent on this issue.
However, I could not declare that instead of using ordinal numbers in
base 10, we would be using ordinal numbers in base 3. This is illegal
because while the rules do not expressly forbid this specific action,
there is a rule concerning the numbering of proposals (Rule 642) and
thus I cannot arbitrarily adjust this, even though the said rule does
not discuss this issue specifically."

The text of Rule 115 survives, unchanged in rule 1 today.  Rule 1
permits not the unprohibited, but the un*regulated*.  The sad and happy
numbers are regulated by the rules, and therefore can not be
arbitrarily altered by the scamsters.

This has continued to be the Ackan standard in the almost three and a
half years since CFJ 113.  Let me also note Malenkai's Supreme Court
reasoning on CFJ 178, the initiator's and judge's reasoning on CFJ
92.9+2.718i, the judge's reasoning on CFJ 595, judge's reasoning on CFJ
719 and probably countless others.

Judge's 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.

King Felix
(Acting CotC)

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

From: "Gavin Logan" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Speaker (Political)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:02:05 -0400 (EDT)

The results of the Serious Hearing called by proposal 4203 are as follows:

"El Presidente?  E's just a puppet head!":
Studge
King Felix
Blest Lax Monk Pal
Alfvaen
K 2
Several of K 2's non-entities

"It's Good to be the King":
Dragon Mage
Emperor Ai! Pedrito!
One of K 2's non-entities (smashed)

"Burn the Witch!":
IdiotBoy

Therefore rule 6-4-1 ("Speaker") section (i) is amended to read in full:
"The office of Speaker is a political office with one seat."

King Felix
(Count Tabula)

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

From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 722 (Studge) (FALSE)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:05:42 -0400 (EDT)

Gavin Logan wrote:
> 
> Studge has judged this FALSE. Apologies for the delay.

Could an entity with a better grasp of the rules than the speaker and
president please tell us who is acting CotC at the moment?

Laa Laa, confuzzled.

-- 
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: "Gavin Logan" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (rufus)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:08:41 -0400 (EDT)

Robin Hood failed to post Phoebe's wisdom.
rufus has found Phoebe's matchbox.

King Felix
(OiCoRT)

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

From: "Gavin Logan" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 180 (FALSE)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:08:42 -0400 (EDT)

>With appologies for the shoddy formatting due to cut and pasting, and
>also for the extreme lateness, as I am a justice too :-).
>
>Laa Laa, acting CotC, Justice.

"I'm acting CotC."
"No, I am!"

King Felix
(too lazy to look up rules)

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 722 (Studge) (FALSE)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:10:27 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 26 Jun 1999, Tom Walmsley wrote:
> > Studge has judged this FALSE. Apologies for the delay.
> 
> Could an entity with a better grasp of the rules than the speaker and
> president please tell us who is acting CotC at the moment?

As far as I can tell, it should be the President since the President is
first in the chain for the Upper Cabinet.

--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: "Gavin Logan" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 722 (Studge) (FALSE)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 18:26:06 -0400 (EDT)

>On Sat, 26 Jun 1999, Tom Walmsley wrote:
>> > Studge has judged this FALSE. Apologies for the delay.
>>
>> Could an entity with a better grasp of the rules than the speaker and
>> president please tell us who is acting CotC at the moment?
>
>As far as I can tell, it should be the President since the President is
>first in the chain for the Upper Cabinet.
>
>--Dragon Mage
>

Hadn't read that. I was reading rule 4:

"The duties of any offices held by the player shall be performed by the
Speaker or someone appointed by the Speaker, unless some other rule provides
for an Acting Officer"

It's not that the rules are complicated, it's just there are too many
clauses.

King Felix
(phew, I'm not Acting CotC)

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

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Summarizer (BLMP) - ATTN: King Felix
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 21:57:16 -0400 (EDT)

>After a fair bit of umming and ahing I've decided to give the
position
>to Blest Lax Monk Pal.
>
At last we can reveal ourselves to the Ackans.

BLMP.

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

End of ackanomic Digest V4 #170
*******************************