Subject: ackanomic Digest V4 #215
From: [email-masked]
To: ackanomic digest users <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 00:00:02 -0400 (EDT)

ackanomic Digest	Thursday, August 12 1999	Volume: 04  Issue: 215

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

From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4297 accepted
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 03:12:28 -0400 (EDT)

I change the gamestate by changing Studge's Proposal Characteristic to 1.
I change the gamestate by changing Studge's Voting Characteristic to 0.
I change the gamestate by changing Studge's State to Non-Voting.

-- Emperor Ai! Pedrito! B(Scam)
Acting Registrar * DeeJay * Dungeon Master * Herald * Rule-Harfer
 Crazy French-Scotsman * Harfmeister * Student * Wrangler and Belt-Holder

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

From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4297 accepted
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 03:25:25 -0400 (EDT)

At 03:12 AM 8/12/99 -0400, you wrote:
>I change the gamestate by changing Studge's Proposal Characteristic to 1.
>I change the gamestate by changing Studge's Voting Characteristic to 0.
>I change the gamestate by changing Studge's State to Non-Voting.
>

This last did not occur, as it would have affected the entity ACKA, making
it cease to be a sphere of influence.

-- Emperor Ai! Pedrito! B(Scam)
Acting Registrar * DeeJay * Dungeon Master * Herald * Rule-Harfer
 Crazy French-Scotsman * Student * Wrangler and Belt-Holder

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

From: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4297 accepted
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 05:55:37 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:

> At 03:12 AM 8/12/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >I change the gamestate by changing Studge's Proposal Characteristic to 1.
> >I change the gamestate by changing Studge's Voting Characteristic to 0.
> >I change the gamestate by changing Studge's State to Non-Voting.
> >
> 
> This last did not occur, as it would have affected the entity ACKA, making
> it cease to be a sphere of influence.

Both of the first two impose duties on the Dungeonmaster, to change their
records of proposal characteristics and voting characteristics.  They
therefore have an effect on an entity other than Studge, and hence fail.

Yours,
Slakko
-- 
Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer - http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/
Queens' College Cambridge, 2nd Year Ph.D. (Pure Maths) - Graph Theory
Insert random funny line here.

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

From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4297 accepted
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:14:30 -0400 (EDT)

>Both of the first two impose duties on the Dungeonmaster, to change their
>records of proposal characteristics and voting characteristics.  They
>therefore have an effect on an entity other than Studge, and hence fail.

	I deny that the act of being required to harf something constitutes an
effect.  I'm at work right now, so I can't write up the CFJ, but I'll send
it out sometime this evening.

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

From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4297 accepted
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:41:56 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 [email-masked] wrote:

> >Both of the first two impose duties on the Dungeonmaster, to change their
> >records of proposal characteristics and voting characteristics.  They
> >therefore have an effect on an entity other than Studge, and hence fail.
> 
> 	I deny that the act of being required to harf something constitutes an
> effect.  I'm at work right now, so I can't write up the CFJ, but I'll send
> it out sometime this evening.

So you can end up committing a crime as a result of something which had no
effect on you?  (i.e. failure to harf).  I know I'm possibly stretching
the definition of "effect" in my claim, but if you're right then you end
up with something equally counterintuitive.

-- 
Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer - http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/
Queens' College Cambridge, 2nd Year Ph.D. (Pure Maths) - Graph Theory
My stream of consciousness has dried up.  Time to try irrigation.

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

From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4297 accepted
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:59:27 -0400 (EDT)

>So you can end up committing a crime as a result of something which had no
>effect on you?  (i.e. failure to harf).  I know I'm possibly stretching
>the definition of "effect" in my claim, but if you're right then you end
>up with something equally counterintuitive.

	We've established a habit of keeping information as web pages which are
(or are not) updated periodicly.  In principle, however, the game state for
something could not change for weeks and yet the harfer fails to harf it
(for instance not putting a page on the web at all).  If, for instance, K2
were to put up the financiers page in June, and then nothing happened to
change any data on it for two months, and he never change the time-stamp, I
content that he would still be guilty of failure to harf.  The event has no
effect on the DM because e is still required to harf the state of those
characteristics whether or not they change.

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

From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4297 accepted
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:32:16 -0400 (EDT)

EA!P! wrote:

>I change the gamestate by changing Studge's Proposal Characteristic to 1.
>I change the gamestate by changing Studge's Voting Characteristic to 0.
>I change the gamestate by changing Studge's State to Non-Voting.

I am of the general opinion that at least the first two of these worked.
I am, however, very disappointed.  These actions are oppression, not harf.
The proposal was harfy, yes, but the _rule_ is not.

ThinMan

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

From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: *Ping*
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:15:02 -0400 (EDT)

Today is Thursday the 12th day of August, and the Machine That Goes *ping*
has gone *ping* today.  Since I have been scholar, the Machine has
gone *ping* 15 times.

--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: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4316
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 16:30:30 -0400 (EDT)

I retract this Prop.

K 2

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Proposal 4316
> Proposal title... um Thingy
> K 2
> Due: Thu Aug 19 16:29:08 1999
> Sphere: Hypnotist of Ladies
> 
> Amend Rule 7-2-5 (Titled Gentry) by deleting the final sentence which
> reads "When a title that was rule-defined is repealed, all players lose
> that title." [because it stomps on the whole point of the rule -
> "Thingies (entities and non-entities) that have been defined in the
> rules at some time as Titles, and have not have that designation
> removed, remain Titles."
> 
> {{Studge receives the Unique Title "Punching Bag". All effects generated
> under the auspices of the final paragraph of Rule 1 are undone in
> reverse chronological order. The final paragraph of rule 1 is stricken
> from the rule set.}}

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

From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4297 accepted
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 16:39:40 -0400 (EDT)

At 09:32 AM 8/12/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>EA!P! wrote:
>
>>I change the gamestate by changing Studge's Proposal Characteristic to 1.
>>I change the gamestate by changing Studge's Voting Characteristic to 0.
>>I change the gamestate by changing Studge's State to Non-Voting.
>
>I am of the general opinion that at least the first two of these worked.
>I am, however, very disappointed.  These actions are oppression, not harf.
>The proposal was harfy, yes, but the _rule_ is not.
>

He can deal with a week of 'oppression' where he can only submit one
proposal (I don't think Studge has ever submitted more than one proposal a
week unless it was for a scam) and only vote |100| or less.  He gets a
whole bunch of notoriety in return, as well as martyrdom.

-- Emperor Ai! Pedrito! B(Scam)
Acting Registrar * DeeJay * Dungeon Master * Herald * Rule-Harfer
 Crazy French-Scotsman * Student * Wrangler and Belt-Holder

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

From: Henry Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 724 (Pregnant Hippo, A German Dog)
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 17:34:33 -0400 (EDT)

Call for Judgement 723 - August 2, 1999
Subject: Breakfast
Initiator: K2
Judge: IdiotBoy
Judgement: FALSE
Appellant: Slakko
Cortex: Pregnant Hippo, A German Dog
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:
Between 22-Jun-99 04:58:14 and 30-Jun-99 14:39:06 Studge did not alter the
rules or the game state according to Rule 1 (as it read during that period).

Reasoning:
I didn't submit this until now cause I wasn't sure we were in a thread
where it was relevant.

This CFJ can only be TRUE in the thread that CFJ 722 is TRUE. Assuming
that to be the case:

* On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 04:57:32 P4207 was submitted.
* On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 04:57:31 P4207's voting period ended.
* On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 04:58:14 Invalid voting results for P4207 were
>       released.
* On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 05:00:27 Studge announced a change to the rule set
>       attempting to create a rule defined entity "The Imperium".

* According to Rule 2 (Proposals):
     As soon as possible after a proposal's prescribed voting period
     ends, the votes on that proposal shall be posted publicly.
     [... conditions for ... ] then it is accepted. Otherwise it is
     rejected.

     If a proposal is accepted, one of two things happen. If the
     proposal consisted of a list of one-time effects, such as changes
     to the rules, then those effects shall be applied, one at a time,
     in the order in which they appear in the proposal. (Ambiguous,
     retroactive, and/or meaningless effects are ignored.)

For a proposal to have its effect applied it must be accepted. To be
accepted the votes on it must be released publicly - at the time of
Studge's attempted modification this had not occurred - some invalid
results had been ruleset and some players other than the promotor had
attempted to convince us they new the results, but the correct official
results had not been released.

* According to Rule 2-2 (Scoring When A Proposal's Voting Results are
Reported):

     I. Timing of these score changes

     All the following scoring changes are applied at the time the
     Proposal's tabulated voting results are officially reported,
     unless the new rule or effect calls for an instantaneous
     change to 1 or more players' score, in which case the score
     changes detailed in this rule are applied an infinitesimal
     amount of time after those effects are applied.

This supports the timeline - Results released then proposal has effect.

* Rule 2-1-2 (Mannna from Heaven):

     When A Proposal's Voting Results are Reported, but prior to any
     effects generated by it (including any scoring changes)

Another rule on the same theme. If Mannna changes occur after the
official results but before the proposals effect, the effects must occur
after the official results too.

Net effect is that between 22 Jun 1999 05:00:27 and 22 Jun 1999 19:41:07
when the official voting results were released was that rule one did not
empower Studge to amend the rules.

* On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 05:08:56 JT issued an "Imperial Dictate" (ID).
* On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 05:12:39 Studge said "I concur to both dictates."
>       (refering to JT's "Imperial Dictate").

JT issues an "Imperial Dictate" which purports to modify the game state,
apparently Studge concurs with this action... is that the same as Studge
performing the action emself? If I said: The Angry Hammer transfers A$
10 from K 2 to JT and JT concurred with this what would happen?

* On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 05:13:56 JT censored an ID and made another.
* On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 19:41:07 /dev/joe released the correct and
>       official voting results.
* On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 02:20:12 Studge said "I concur." in reference to
>       JT's ID.
* On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:19:27 JT issued an ID.
* On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:31:51 Studge said :
>       "If it wasn't, I make the same diktate and concur to that." in
>reference
>       to an earlier ID by JT on research.

Is issuing and concurring to a "diktate" the same as making a public
action?

I issue the following Imperial Dicate: K 2 transfers A$ to Studge.
I concur with this.

Now What?

* On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 14:39:06 P4224 Passed.

Hopefully it will be possible to apply the judge's reasoning on this CFJ
to determine if the last (or possibly earlier) diktate was successful in
the event this CFJ is not TRUE.

Judge's Reasoning:

The Initiator's reasoning has two main points.  Point, the first:  That
the attempted changes of rules and game state failed due to the timing of
the release of the proper results and the attempted actions.  Point, the
second:  The attempted actions were not actions at all.

On the first point:

This is the stickiest of issues.  There are reasonable persons on both
sides of this issue.  The Rules themselves are unclear on how to proceed
in this case.

The confusion here results from the automation which has made the game
work so well.  The Ackabot does an admirable job of collecting, tabulating
and reporting results.  But there are certain things which can and should
require human intervention.  The Tabulator has seen fit to give over to
the Ackabot the right to release voting results.

Since the voting results were released 22 Jun 1999 04:58:14, we are
rule-bound to accept that as the time when the acceptance or rejection
took place.

The fact that the Ackabot had an incorrect understanding of the game state
and denied to certain players their right to vote does not change the
actual game state.  Furthermore, the fact that Ackabot incorrectly
reported the results does not change the actual gamestate.  The voting
results were released 22 Jun 1999 04:58:14, so any and all effects which
follow from that must begin at that time.

At 22 Jun 1999 19:41:07, /dev/joe released corrected results.  This action
does not change the time at which the results were reported.  It merely
properly reports the game state.  The results were still released 22 Jun
1999 04:58:14.

On the second point:

There is considerable game custom to support the notion that when a group
of players wish to perform some public action, the following happen:

One of the players suggests an action.
Others who agree to be involved in the action concur with said action.
If there are a sufficient number of players concurring the action occuurs.

The fact that the players involved chose some irrelevant name for their
list of game actions does not make this chain of events less effective.

The game actions were posted to a public forum, implying game actions.
They were concurred to by a sufficient number of appropriate players.
They occured.

The Initiator cites the following as an example of why we should not
assume these were effective public actions:

	I issue the following Imperial Dicate: K 2 transfers A$ to Studge.
	I concur with this.

The difference is that there is only a single player involved.   There are
rule defined mechanisms for single players to perform game actions.  We
have only game custom to guide us on actions by groups.  (Ignoring for
the moment rule defined Institutions which have rules governing the means
of public action.)

Appellant's Reasoning:
The statement would be TRUE if CFJ 722 is TRUE.  This was mentioned in the
initial submitter's reasoning.  However, the Judge's reasoning did not
even consider questions raised in CFJ 722, such as whether or not the
actual changing of Voting Characteristics took place (due to the problems
in deciding whether or not a song was played on the ASS if a Token was
used but no cash was available).

If I do not appeal this, and CFJ 722 comes down as TRUE, then we will end
up with two CFJs with contradictory arguments, and that truly will be a
dog's breakfast.

I decline my right to hear this appeal as a Justice.

Cortex's Reasoning:
The court finds the reasoning of the initial judge to be correct.
Although a case could be made for the incorrect report on voting by the
ackabot not being a public posting of the voting results, both
interpretations are reasonable and the court sees no reason to overturn
the reasoning of the original judge. The court also agrees with Slakko
that the appeal was necessary in order to stop conflicting CFJ verdicts
being returned.

--
-Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and
enjoy it.
		-Logan Pearsall Smith

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

From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4297 accepted
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 17:34:53 -0400 (EDT)

Emperor Ai! Pedrito! wrote:
>I change the gamestate by changing Studge's Proposal Characteristic to 1.
>I change the gamestate by changing Studge's Voting Characteristic to 0.
>I change the gamestate by changing Studge's State to Non-Voting.
>

Aaahhh!?!

What's that pain?!?

It hurts...  just below the shoulder blade....

WOW that _hurts_!

What is it?

...

(Studge reaches around and feels his back)

...

Oh, a knife...

Studge

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

From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4297 accepted
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 17:49:04 -0400 (EDT)

Emperor Ai! Pedrito! wrote:
>I change the gamestate by changing Studge's Proposal Characteristic to 1.
>I change the gamestate by changing Studge's Voting Characteristic to 0.
>I change the gamestate by changing Studge's State to Non-Voting.
>

Aaahhh!?!

What's that pain?!?

It hurts...  just below the shoulder blade....

WOW that _hurts_!

What is it?

...

(Studge reaches around and feels his back)

...

Oh, a knife...

Studge

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

From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: CFJ 727 ()
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 17:51:31 -0400 (EDT)

Call for Judgement 728 - August 12, 1999
Subject: Affect or effect?
Initiator: else...if
Judge:
Judgement:

Statement:
	Studge has a Voting Characteristic of 0.

Reasoning:
	The question is whether or not the act of changing Studge's VC to 0
has an effect on anyone else.  The argument advanced to suggest that it
does is that it requires the harfer (in this case the Dungeon Master) to
harf the change.
	The flaw in the arugment is that the Dungeon Master has a
responsibility to harf the game state accurately regardless.  The harfer
has an equal responsibility to scour every message whether or not the
message does anything.  Slakko argues that because he could be prosecuted
for not harfing the change, it should be counted as an effect, but this is
equally true whether or not the message changes the game state.  If the
message does not contain anything regarding Voting Characteristcs, yet
Slakko records a change to the game state by accident, he is just as
prosecutable.  So the change to Studge's VC is not an effect: it changes
the game state, but Slakko's has to do the same thing regardless of whether
or not a characteristic is affected.  The fact that, in practice, it
creates more work for him is an artifice of the way we do things, not a
legal distinction.

--
-Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and
enjoy it.
		-Logan Pearsall Smith

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

From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 724 (Pregnant Hippo, A German Dog)
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 18:02:14 -0400 (EDT)

Now that this is "settled" let me just say that netheir mine nor the
reasoning of the Justices in this case is part of the Judgement.  

If not appealing this would have led to a contradiction, there will STILL
be a contradiction.  The statement did not include any thread
dependancies.  The verdicts could not include thread dependancies.

I've always argued that this makes for a silly system of 'justice'.  Well,
maybe I've never argued it, but I've certainly thought it really loudly.

IB

On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Henry Towsner wrote:

> Call for Judgement 723 - August 2, 1999
> Subject: Breakfast
> Initiator: K2
> Judge: IdiotBoy
> Judgement: FALSE
> Appellant: Slakko
> Cortex: Pregnant Hippo, A German Dog
> Judgement: FALSE
> 
> Statement:
> Between 22-Jun-99 04:58:14 and 30-Jun-99 14:39:06 Studge did not alter the
> rules or the game state according to Rule 1 (as it read during that period).
> 
> Reasoning:
> I didn't submit this until now cause I wasn't sure we were in a thread
> where it was relevant.
> 
> This CFJ can only be TRUE in the thread that CFJ 722 is TRUE. Assuming
> that to be the case:
> 
> * On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 04:57:32 P4207 was submitted.
> * On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 04:57:31 P4207's voting period ended.
> * On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 04:58:14 Invalid voting results for P4207 were
> >       released.
> * On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 05:00:27 Studge announced a change to the rule set
> >       attempting to create a rule defined entity "The Imperium".
> 
> * According to Rule 2 (Proposals):
>      As soon as possible after a proposal's prescribed voting period
>      ends, the votes on that proposal shall be posted publicly.
>      [... conditions for ... ] then it is accepted. Otherwise it is
>      rejected.
> 
>      If a proposal is accepted, one of two things happen. If the
>      proposal consisted of a list of one-time effects, such as changes
>      to the rules, then those effects shall be applied, one at a time,
>      in the order in which they appear in the proposal. (Ambiguous,
>      retroactive, and/or meaningless effects are ignored.)
> 
> For a proposal to have its effect applied it must be accepted. To be
> accepted the votes on it must be released publicly - at the time of
> Studge's attempted modification this had not occurred - some invalid
> results had been ruleset and some players other than the promotor had
> attempted to convince us they new the results, but the correct official
> results had not been released.
> 
> * According to Rule 2-2 (Scoring When A Proposal's Voting Results are
> Reported):
> 
>      I. Timing of these score changes
> 
>      All the following scoring changes are applied at the time the
>      Proposal's tabulated voting results are officially reported,
>      unless the new rule or effect calls for an instantaneous
>      change to 1 or more players' score, in which case the score
>      changes detailed in this rule are applied an infinitesimal
>      amount of time after those effects are applied.
> 
> This supports the timeline - Results released then proposal has effect.
> 
> * Rule 2-1-2 (Mannna from Heaven):
> 
>      When A Proposal's Voting Results are Reported, but prior to any
>      effects generated by it (including any scoring changes)
> 
> Another rule on the same theme. If Mannna changes occur after the
> official results but before the proposals effect, the effects must occur
> after the official results too.
> 
> Net effect is that between 22 Jun 1999 05:00:27 and 22 Jun 1999 19:41:07
> when the official voting results were released was that rule one did not
> empower Studge to amend the rules.
> 
> * On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 05:08:56 JT issued an "Imperial Dictate" (ID).
> * On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 05:12:39 Studge said "I concur to both dictates."
> >       (refering to JT's "Imperial Dictate").
> 
> JT issues an "Imperial Dictate" which purports to modify the game state,
> apparently Studge concurs with this action... is that the same as Studge
> performing the action emself? If I said: The Angry Hammer transfers A$
> 10 from K 2 to JT and JT concurred with this what would happen?
> 
> * On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 05:13:56 JT censored an ID and made another.
> * On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 19:41:07 /dev/joe released the correct and
> >       official voting results.
> * On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 02:20:12 Studge said "I concur." in reference to
> >       JT's ID.
> * On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:19:27 JT issued an ID.
> * On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:31:51 Studge said :
> >       "If it wasn't, I make the same diktate and concur to that." in
> >reference
> >       to an earlier ID by JT on research.
> 
> Is issuing and concurring to a "diktate" the same as making a public
> action?
> 
> I issue the following Imperial Dicate: K 2 transfers A$ to Studge.
> I concur with this.
> 
> Now What?
> 
> * On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 14:39:06 P4224 Passed.
> 
> Hopefully it will be possible to apply the judge's reasoning on this CFJ
> to determine if the last (or possibly earlier) diktate was successful in
> the event this CFJ is not TRUE.
> 
> Judge's Reasoning:
> 
> The Initiator's reasoning has two main points.  Point, the first:  That
> the attempted changes of rules and game state failed due to the timing of
> the release of the proper results and the attempted actions.  Point, the
> second:  The attempted actions were not actions at all.
> 
> On the first point:
> 
> This is the stickiest of issues.  There are reasonable persons on both
> sides of this issue.  The Rules themselves are unclear on how to proceed
> in this case.
> 
> The confusion here results from the automation which has made the game
> work so well.  The Ackabot does an admirable job of collecting, tabulating
> and reporting results.  But there are certain things which can and should
> require human intervention.  The Tabulator has seen fit to give over to
> the Ackabot the right to release voting results.
> 
> Since the voting results were released 22 Jun 1999 04:58:14, we are
> rule-bound to accept that as the time when the acceptance or rejection
> took place.
> 
> The fact that the Ackabot had an incorrect understanding of the game state
> and denied to certain players their right to vote does not change the
> actual game state.  Furthermore, the fact that Ackabot incorrectly
> reported the results does not change the actual gamestate.  The voting
> results were released 22 Jun 1999 04:58:14, so any and all effects which
> follow from that must begin at that time.
> 
> At 22 Jun 1999 19:41:07, /dev/joe released corrected results.  This action
> does not change the time at which the results were reported.  It merely
> properly reports the game state.  The results were still released 22 Jun
> 1999 04:58:14.
> 
> On the second point:
> 
> There is considerable game custom to support the notion that when a group
> of players wish to perform some public action, the following happen:
> 
> One of the players suggests an action.
> Others who agree to be involved in the action concur with said action.
> If there are a sufficient number of players concurring the action occuurs.
> 
> The fact that the players involved chose some irrelevant name for their
> list of game actions does not make this chain of events less effective.
> 
> The game actions were posted to a public forum, implying game actions.
> They were concurred to by a sufficient number of appropriate players.
> They occured.
> 
> The Initiator cites the following as an example of why we should not
> assume these were effective public actions:
> 
> 	I issue the following Imperial Dicate: K 2 transfers A$ to Studge.
> 	I concur with this.
> 
> The difference is that there is only a single player involved.   There are
> rule defined mechanisms for single players to perform game actions.  We
> have only game custom to guide us on actions by groups.  (Ignoring for
> the moment rule defined Institutions which have rules governing the means
> of public action.)
> 
> 
> Appellant's Reasoning:
> The statement would be TRUE if CFJ 722 is TRUE.  This was mentioned in the
> initial submitter's reasoning.  However, the Judge's reasoning did not
> even consider questions raised in CFJ 722, such as whether or not the
> actual changing of Voting Characteristics took place (due to the problems
> in deciding whether or not a song was played on the ASS if a Token was
> used but no cash was available).
> 
> If I do not appeal this, and CFJ 722 comes down as TRUE, then we will end
> up with two CFJs with contradictory arguments, and that truly will be a
> dog's breakfast.
> 
> I decline my right to hear this appeal as a Justice.
> 
> Cortex's Reasoning:
> The court finds the reasoning of the initial judge to be correct.
> Although a case could be made for the incorrect report on voting by the
> ackabot not being a public posting of the voting results, both
> interpretations are reasonable and the court sees no reason to overturn
> the reasoning of the original judge. The court also agrees with Slakko
> that the appeal was necessary in order to stop conflicting CFJ verdicts
> being returned.
> 
> --
> -Henry Towsner
> 
> 	<[email-masked]>
> 
> 	Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and
> enjoy it.
> 		-Logan Pearsall Smith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: CFJ 728 (Burn the Witch)
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 18:14:09 -0400 (EDT)

I seem to be having trouble with this CFJ.

Call for Judgement 728 - August 12, 1999
Subject: Affect or effect?
Initiator: else...if
Judge: Burn the Witch
Judgement:

Statement:
	Studge has a Voting Characteristic of 0.

Reasoning:
	The question is whether or not the act of changing Studge's VC to 0
has an effect on anyone else.  The argument advanced to suggest that it
does is that it requires the harfer (in this case the Dungeon Master) to
harf the change.
	The flaw in the arugment is that the Dungeon Master has a
responsibility to harf the game state accurately regardless.  The harfer
has an equal responsibility to scour every message whether or not the
message does anything.  Slakko argues that because he could be prosecuted
for not harfing the change, it should be counted as an effect, but this is
equally true whether or not the message changes the game state.  If the
message does not contain anything regarding Voting Characteristcs, yet
Slakko records a change to the game state by accident, he is just as
prosecutable.  So the change to Studge's VC is not an effect: it changes
the game state, but Slakko's has to do the same thing regardless of whether
or not a characteristic is affected.  The fact that, in practice, it
creates more work for him is an artifice of the way we do things, not a
legal distinction.

--
-Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and
enjoy it.
		-Logan Pearsall Smith

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

From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Dog Days.
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:10:12 -0400 (EDT)

Seeing a lull in activity until such time as I submit mylosing salvo or
Monday when more props cycle through.

I got to the Library.  I go to the Vault of the Book.
I go home.

IB

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

Subject: Acka: Tabulation Corrections
From: Joseph DeVincentis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 21:00:18 -0400 (EDT)

#vcadd Studge 2
#vcadd Emperor Ai! Pedrito! 3
#vcadd A German Dog 2
#mannna Studge 2901
#mannna Emperor Ai! Pedrito! 3371
#mannna A German Dog 889
#end

Since it appears we are in the thread where all those scam actions Studge,
EAP, and JT attempted actually work, I am entering some corrections into
the bot with this message, regarding these differences from the previously
reported results:

At June 23, 1999, 20:48:37, Studge, EAP, and JT each had their mannna
set to 4000 and their VCs to 5.  The bot at that time had mannna totals
of 739, 309, and 3111 respectively, so this represents a change of
+3261, +3691, and +889 relative to what the bot had then.  Since their
mannna totals were set to specific numbers by this action, this correction
inherently incorporates all earlier harfing differences.

EAP cast the following votes on the following proposals (originally
reported votes in parentheses) [mannna change in brackets]:
4245: 200 (160) [-40]
4246: 200 (160) [-40]
4257: -200 (-140) [-60]
4258: -200 (-140) [-60]
4283: 200 (140) [-60]
4284: 200 (140) [-60]

Studge cast the following votes on the following proposals (originally
reported votes in parentheses) [mannna change in brackets]:
4245: 200 (160) [-40]
4258: -200 (59) [-120]
4277: -200 (-160) [-40]
4283: 200 (160) [-40]
4284: 200 (160) [-40]
4295: 200 (160) [-40]
4297: -200 (-160) [-40]

Except for 4258, none of these votes are sufficient to change the
acceptance or rejection result of the proposals.

Thus, I arrive at the figures at the top of this message.

/dev/joe

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

End of ackanomic Digest V4 #215
*******************************