Subject: ackanomic Digest V4 #263
From: [email-masked]
To: ackanomic digest users <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 00:00:03 -0400 (EDT)

ackanomic Digest	Wednesday, September 29 1999	Volume: 04  Issue: 263

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 730 (TRUE)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 06:48:53 -0400 (EDT)

Call for Judgement 730 - September 28, 1999
Subject: Which Game?
Initiator: K 2 (28 Sep 1999 0:00 Acka)
Judge: Clamshell Lawyer
Judgement: TRUE
 
Statement:
Rule 3 (Invoking Judgement) is currently part of the rule set.

Reasoning:
P4371 may have reduced the rule set to one rule... or it may not have.

>From P4371:
"
This rule has precedence over all other rules.
...
The game state of Ackanomic is deemed to consist of 
this rule and those persons who were Players...
"
 
As a set of one time actions, I believe this quoted text manages to
manipulate the game state such that the proposal entity numbered 4371
became a rule entity. If the term "this" unambiguously refers to the
entity that contained it ie P4371 then the phrase "this rule" is an
implicit admission that "this" is a rule (possibly in addition to
whatever else it may have been).

The text {{This dog is a mouse. It is Green.}} if it were contained
within a dog would make it (in the context of Ackanomic) a mouse, as
would the text {{This mouse is green.}}.

Judge's Reasoning:
Let me begin by saying that I am attempting to offer an unbiased opinion
here.  I actually *want* to play both nomics which consider themselves
Acka, and have nothing against Acka Lite in judging TRUE here; as I
noted earlier, I believe it will continue regardless of this verdict.  
It is true that I also want to play in the original version, and may be
biased by that; however, after reading the Rules (a quite novel 
experience for me) I am inescapably led to the conclusion that P4371 
did not do what it intended.  Let's see why:

> The text {{This dog is a mouse. It is Green.}} if it were contained
> within a dog would make it (in the context of Ackanomic) a mouse, as
> would the text {{This mouse is green.}}.

First, I disagree entirely with this example.  In the context of
Ackanomic, saying "This dog is a mouse" makes it so, whereas saying
"This mouse is X" would have no effect because it is being issued upon
a dog, which (I am assuming) is a completely different class of entity
from a mouse.  Implicitly changing one type of entity into another, 
distinct, type is not allowed by the Rules.  How many would argue that 
K 2's series of "This is a Modest Aardvark" Proposals are now aardvarks, 
even were such an entity defined?

However, Rules and Proposals are, or at least once were, much more
closely related than dogs and mice, or Proposals and Aardvarks...

> As a set of one time actions, I believe this quoted text manages to
> manipulate the game state such that the proposal entity numbered 4371
> became a rule entity. If the term "this" unambiguously refers to the
> entity that contained it ie P4371 then the phrase "this rule" is an
> implicit admission that "this" is a rule (possibly in addition to
> whatever else it may have been).

Here is, indeed, the rub.  Did Rule 2-2 ("If a Proposal is accepted,
then any one-time effects, such as changes to the Rules...") give P4371
the power to transmute itself into a Rule?  

It (R2-2) certainly used to.  Its (P4371's) submitter, recently returned
from long absence, apparently submitted it with that intent.  This, at
least, is clearly unambiguous.  But it has been established in Acka
that the submitter's intent does not matter; only what the Proposal
explicitly does does.  (Erm, sorry.)  [ It would help immensely if CFJ
729 (the one regarding EA!P!'s supposed malfeasance in harfing by intent
rather than content) had been decided upon already, and I find it
intensely amusing that EA!P!, who believes in harf-by-intent, contends
that P4371 is null, and that IdiotBoy, most vocal of the what-it-says-
is-what-it-does faction during that argument, believes just as strongly
that it is not. ]

In the end:
Proposal 4371 never explicitly creates a Rule, and no Rule gives it the
power to implicitly make itself one.  Therefore, its effects are applied
per R2-2:

"The game state is deemed to consist of <nothing> and those persons who
were Players an instant before the results of the proposal which amended
<nothing> to its current form..." which, instead of erasing Ackanomic
entirely, I would prefer to construe as meaningless under R2-2.

Hence P4371 has no effect, and Ackanomic continues as -- if the word
could ever apply -- normal.

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

From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Re: Proposal 4371 NULL.
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:46:25 -0400 (EDT)

Malenkai wrote:

>I'm not so sure it will.  Just as the CFJ in the kernel thread was
>obviously true, CFJ 730 is obviously true in the thread in which it
>exists, so it seems to mean very little (at least to me) that it 
>came back true.

Quite so.

>  Its _reasoning_ perhaps could provide insight (even
>if it didn't exist officially), but it is unfortunate that its judge 
>did not seem to consider the issue of what exactly P4371 
>was in light of the missing text (and whether the missing text mattered).
>a) Did it exist?  b) Did it exist in its distributed form?  c) Did it 
>exist in its publically knowable submitted form?  d) Did it matter?

>Good arguments can be made for a) and c) (its seems obvious to me that
>b) did not happen).

[Argument for (c) excised.]

>K 2 quotes this part of rule 2 in pointing out the argument for a):
>
>> A Voting player may submit a proposal by sending its text to the
>> Promoter, who shall then post it publicly to be voted on.
>
>I think whether you favor a) or c) comes down to how you construe the
>pronoun "it".  Does "it" refer to the proposal or the text?  If "it"
>refers to the proposal, c) is the correct interpretation, otherwise
>a) is, IMO.  It is easy for me to accept that the promoter distributed
>_the thing_ that was _the proposal_.  (A weak precedent that comes to
>mind is the fact that when Guy Fawkes was promter, e used to distribute
>submitted proposals with their submitters' sig files, whilst other
>promoters, whether using bots or not, sometimes removed the sig files.
>I'm not sure what the current bot does.  The _thing_ distributed was 
>still _the proposal_ whether or not it was proper to include the sig 
>file or not, and platonically, _the proposal_ was applied, because the
>rules gave no power to do otherwise.  Since sig files would generally
>have null effects, this would not have been noticed in practice.   I 
>wish I had a stronger precedent, but I must leave for work now).

The document that the Promoter distributed under the Proposal 4371 label
did not contain the full text submitted by Malenkai.  The excerpt from
Rule 2 seems to me quite clear in saying that that the submitter (not
the Promoter) defines the text of a proposal (by way of his submission).
Therefore, the supposed P4371 can not have been the proposal submitted
by Malenkai -- its text was not the text he submitted.  So let's revist
Malenkai's questions:

(a) Did it exist?  Malenkai submitted a proposal, thus his proposal must
have existed.  By the above, however, that proposal has yet to be
distributed!  So what about the thing distributed as P4371?  I see two
two possibilities: (i) it should be interpreted as an error on the part
of the Promoter and not really a proposal; and (ii) it should be interpreted
as a proposal by the Promoter, with incorrect authorship attribution.  So
if we interpret "it" to mean a proposal with number 4371 then the answer to
question (a) is "no" for case (i) and "yes" for case (ii).

(b and c) These questions are obviously answered "no" in case (i) where
proposal 4371 did not exist at all, but they are both answered "yes" in
case (ii).

(d) Does it matter?  Well, either way the the Promoter still has a proposal
from Malenkai to distribute.  CFJ 730's reasoning confirms that if P4371
did exist then it had no effect, so in that sense I guess it doesn't
matter.  Nevertheless, whether or not P4371 existed does have some small
implications for scoring, so in that sense it does matter.

For what it's worth, I am inclined to favor case (i).  Not that the opinion
of an observer necessarilly has much relevance, but it seems more in tune
with the spirit of the game.  And this really does seem to me one of those
questions where rules and custom are both silent -- a true judgement call.
If the remaining players can come to consensus on this matter then there
should be no need for an additional CFJ.

Oh, and [email-masked] is probably the most appropriate forum for
this discussion.

Cheers,

ThinMan

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

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: Proposal 4371 NULL.
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 11:44:27 -0400 (EDT)

>For what it's worth, I am inclined to favor case (i).

I'm with the Shrubbery.

BLMP.

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

From: Emperor Ai Pedrito <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Elders
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 11:46:50 -0400 (EDT)

At 08:00 PM 9/28/99 -0400, you wrote:
>"Gavin M. Doig" wrote:
>> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> >I second ThinMan's nomination (Alfvaen already is) and nominate
>> >Quoth/TGW/Rambo/Tambourine/Alice/(S)He of Many Names as well.
>

Quoth is not gone.  Quoth only left Acka-lite.

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Food for thought
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 13:14:51 -0400 (EDT)

It certainly seems obvious to me at this point that P4371 did not in fact
achieve it's desired effect and replace the ackanomic rules with a lite
version.  It is equally obvious to me that the 'kernel' ackanomic exists
in it's own right regardless of that it was engendered differently than
thought (IE, it exists ex nihilo rather than being born of the old
acka).  I'm currently (and intend for at least the near future) to remain
a player in both.   However, I do question whether I have the time for two
nomics even if only one of them threatens to be very active.

I will state now (for the record) that even should I eventually decide to
leave ackanomic I will still be willing to maintain the mailing list
software and to help whomever then became postmaster to learn how to use
listar's admin commands to maintain the list.

If I do have to choose due to time constraints, I would probably choose to
stay with the younger more active nomic since it was that activity (in
part which attracted me to Ackanomic a year and slightly more than a half
ago.   I don't know why Acka has declined to the point it did, though I
have some suspicions (and based on those suspicious feel that I am part of
the reason).

Anyway, this is rambling mostly.   For the moment, I'm still a player.   I
hope that a large part of the players of ackanomic will remain players in
both games, and that some of the less active current players will find
reasons to become more active in either or both games in the future.

--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: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: Proposal 4371 NULL.
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 13:19:14 -0400 (EDT)

First of all, it seems unfortunate that I cannot (easily) get to the 
rules for either thread from www.ackanomic.org, nor can I find them
from Duncan's page (which links to ackanomic.org).  I'm not sure why
they were moved/deleted/whatever until this was sorted through, I guess
to confuse people like me :-)  I'm sure they are somewhere obvious ...
but for now I shall have to comment based on my memory of them.

ThinMan wrote:

> The document that the Promoter distributed under the Proposal 4371 label
> did not contain the full text submitted by Malenkai.  The excerpt from
> Rule 2 seems to me quite clear in saying that that the submitter (not
> the Promoter) defines the text of a proposal (by way of his submission).

Agreed.

> Therefore, the supposed P4371 can not have been the proposal submitted
> by Malenkai -- its text was not the text he submitted. 

This is still debatable.  It seems to me that if the thing sent by the
Promoter labeled P4371 contained "please refer to Malenkai's post 
on the 16th subjected 'Acka: Proposal' for the actual text of this 
proposal", or "please refer to such and such URL" and the proposal 
was something really long like "Amend the rules so that they read: 
[followed by a verbatim copy of the rules with the exception that all
occurrences of the letter 'Q' were removed]", then no one would have
thought twice about it.  If "it" means _proposal_, and not _text_,
in rule 2, I feel this is reasonable. 

In all cases, the Promoter reformats the submitted proposal for 
distribution, and in effect, is providing a _referrant_ to the actual
proposal, because the rules to not allow the Promoter to, _in fact_,
alter the submission in any way (as far as I know, of course, I cannot
get to the rules).  In fact, it seems impossible for the Promoter to
actually distribute the actual proposal, e may only, in the process of
copying it, provide a referent to it.  (If I copy the numeral 1, and leave
off the serif, is it still the number 1, provided it can unambiguously
be identified as such?)  So, was what was distributed as P4371 a reasonable,
unambiguous referent to (or copy of) _my_ proposal, or one of the 
alternatives ThinMan postulated?  (As ThinMan said, this may simply come
down to a matter of judgment).

Put another way (and this is were I really wish I had the rules in front
of me), there is a rule which I recall stating that when an officer is
required to post a message, and approximation or non-verbatim transcript
or wording of the required text is sufficient to satisfy the requirement.
(I believe the rule was called "Conventions"; I'd be grateful if someone
could forward its text to me).  It seems to me that, if I am remembering
the rule correctly, what the Promoter distributed was my proposal 
submission, (or an unambiguous referent to it), and not one of the 
alternatives postulated.
 
Is this playing fast and loose with the rules?  It depends on what that
Conventions rule actually says.  But I have to ask this question:  Why
do we allow blatant violation of the rules on the matter of typos, e.g.
from 9/7/99 from the Rule-Harfer in regards to P4351:

> > ---
> > for the Thesis to be accepted, more than 1/2 of the valid responses
> should be 
> > ---
> 
> I have taken the liberty of capitalizing the f at the beginning of this
> sentence.  If you don't like it, impeach me.
 
and then quibble over what was seemingly, _in fact_, a cut and paste or
bot error?  All I ask for is consistency -- it seems that in allowing
the rule-harfer to change rules in this manner, we have established a
precedent that would allow a loose enough interpretation of the Conventions
rule to allow what was labeled by the promoter as P4371 to refer to the
publicly knowable text of my proposal. 

I realize this is tenuous ground, in particular the argument that "I 
paid attention to the Promoter's post and not yours, knew it would be
NULL, and voted accordingly", seems appropriate but considered in light
of the above argument it is actually irrelevant (and possibly unfortunate
for anyone who happened to have that line of thought).

> And this really does seem to me one of those questions where rules and
> custom are both silent -- a true judgement call.  If the remaining players 
> can come to consensus on this matter then there should be no need for an 
> additional CFJ.

Again, the Conventions rule may prove the above quote false.  However, if
it does not, all that is really being debated is which game has the lineage
from Ackers 1996 game, and which has a few-day-old initial game state (you
guys all knew this, forgive me for just coming up to speed :-)).  I guess
we all have to look at the facts and history of these sorts of typo errors
objectively and make our own decisions for ourselves and decide what we
want to call the game we are playing in (somehow reminds me of that
New Rishonnomic [sic] business :-)).  It would be nice to come to consensus
in case some historian comes along, but I can live with the fact that in 10 
years, people will be debating which is the "true Acka"; there is plenty of 
real world precedent for this sort of thing.  I would personally hope that
the thing called Acka-Lite calls itself Ackanomic, though, because I 
personally believe (pending a look at the rules and more arguments), that
it is the Ackers 1996 game.

Malenkai

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: Proposal 4371 NULL.
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 13:38:01 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Randy Hall wrote:
> First of all, it seems unfortunate that I cannot (easily) get to the 
> rules for either thread from www.ackanomic.org, nor can I find them
> from Duncan's page (which links to ackanomic.org).  I'm not sure why
> they were moved/deleted/whatever until this was sorted through, I guess
> to confuse people like me :-)  I'm sure they are somewhere obvious ...
> but for now I shall have to comment based on my memory of them.

I believe http://www.ackanomic.org/rules still has the most recent (up
until EAP stepped down as rule-harfer) version of the rules for old
Ackanomic.  The proposals are at
http://www.ackanomic.org/~ackabot/props.html

If the above mail reference fails, try
http://www.ackanomic.org/~sten/rules

Ackanomic-Lite's rules are solely the rule you'd proposed in Kernel.  The
props for Acka Lite are at
http://www.ackanomic.org/~ackabot/kernel/props.html.

[malenkai's interesting reasoning snipped]

I find that I do agree with his reasoning and as some am rethinking this
entirely.

--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: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 730 (TRUE)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 13:47:58 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, K 2 wrote:
> Call for Judgement 730 - September 28, 1999
> Subject: Which Game?
> Initiator: K 2 (28 Sep 1999 0:00 Acka)
> Judge: Clamshell Lawyer
> Judgement: TRUE
>  
> Statement:
> Rule 3 (Invoking Judgement) is currently part of the rule set.
> 
> Reasoning:
> P4371 may have reduced the rule set to one rule... or it may not have.
> 
> >From P4371:
> "
> This rule has precedence over all other rules.
> ...
> The game state of Ackanomic is deemed to consist of 
> this rule and those persons who were Players...
> "
>  
> As a set of one time actions, I believe this quoted text manages to
> manipulate the game state such that the proposal entity numbered 4371
> became a rule entity. If the term "this" unambiguously refers to the
> entity that contained it ie P4371 then the phrase "this rule" is an
> implicit admission that "this" is a rule (possibly in addition to
> whatever else it may have been).
> 
> The text {{This dog is a mouse. It is Green.}} if it were contained
> within a dog would make it (in the context of Ackanomic) a mouse, as
> would the text {{This mouse is green.}}.
> 
> Judge's Reasoning:
> Let me begin by saying that I am attempting to offer an unbiased opinion
> here.  I actually *want* to play both nomics which consider themselves
> Acka, and have nothing against Acka Lite in judging TRUE here; as I
> noted earlier, I believe it will continue regardless of this verdict.  
> It is true that I also want to play in the original version, and may be
> biased by that; however, after reading the Rules (a quite novel 
> experience for me) I am inescapably led to the conclusion that P4371 
> did not do what it intended.  Let's see why:
> 
> > The text {{This dog is a mouse. It is Green.}} if it were contained
> > within a dog would make it (in the context of Ackanomic) a mouse, as
> > would the text {{This mouse is green.}}.
> 
> First, I disagree entirely with this example.  In the context of
> Ackanomic, saying "This dog is a mouse" makes it so, whereas saying
> "This mouse is X" would have no effect because it is being issued upon
> a dog, which (I am assuming) is a completely different class of entity
> from a mouse.  Implicitly changing one type of entity into another, 
> distinct, type is not allowed by the Rules.  How many would argue that 
> K 2's series of "This is a Modest Aardvark" Proposals are now aardvarks, 
> even were such an entity defined?
> 
> However, Rules and Proposals are, or at least once were, much more
> closely related than dogs and mice, or Proposals and Aardvarks...
> 
> > As a set of one time actions, I believe this quoted text manages to
> > manipulate the game state such that the proposal entity numbered 4371
> > became a rule entity. If the term "this" unambiguously refers to the
> > entity that contained it ie P4371 then the phrase "this rule" is an
> > implicit admission that "this" is a rule (possibly in addition to
> > whatever else it may have been).
> 
> Here is, indeed, the rub.  Did Rule 2-2 ("If a Proposal is accepted,
> then any one-time effects, such as changes to the Rules...") give P4371
> the power to transmute itself into a Rule?  
> 
> It (R2-2) certainly used to.  Its (P4371's) submitter, recently returned
> from long absence, apparently submitted it with that intent.  This, at
> least, is clearly unambiguous.  But it has been established in Acka
> that the submitter's intent does not matter; only what the Proposal
> explicitly does does.  (Erm, sorry.)  [ It would help immensely if CFJ
> 729 (the one regarding EA!P!'s supposed malfeasance in harfing by intent
> rather than content) had been decided upon already, and I find it
> intensely amusing that EA!P!, who believes in harf-by-intent, contends
> that P4371 is null, and that IdiotBoy, most vocal of the what-it-says-
> is-what-it-does faction during that argument, believes just as strongly
> that it is not. ]
> 
> In the end:
> Proposal 4371 never explicitly creates a Rule, and no Rule gives it the
> power to implicitly make itself one.  Therefore, its effects are applied
> per R2-2:
> 
> "The game state is deemed to consist of <nothing> and those persons who
> were Players an instant before the results of the proposal which amended
> <nothing> to its current form..." which, instead of erasing Ackanomic
> entirely, I would prefer to construe as meaningless under R2-2.
> 
> Hence P4371 has no effect, and Ackanomic continues as -- if the word
> could ever apply -- normal.

I appeal this CFJ (and thus I suppose decline to hear it) with the
following reasoning

Appeal Reasoning:
As has been pointed out recently by both Malenkai and ThinMan, the
original judge did not address all of the issues inherent in this CFJ.
While I am undecided about whether it did or did not have the effect
of changing the rules, I am inclined to be persuaded by Malenkai's recent
public argument.   I ask that should the public discussion and the judges
make this situation clear and support the initial verdict that the judges
would be lenient in their appeal penalty.

--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: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 730 (TRUE)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 17:05:37 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, JT wrote:

> Appeal Reasoning:
> As has been pointed out recently by both Malenkai and ThinMan, the
> original judge did not address all of the issues inherent in this CFJ.

For what it's worth, I submitted my reasoning to K 2 about five minutes
before Malenkai posted eir message declaring that /dev/joe had
incorrectly distributed eir proposal.  Had I waited, I would definitely
have addressed the issue in my reasoning, although my verdict would
probably have been the same.

If anyone cares why:  I agree with ThinMan that Malenkai's Kernel prop (as
proposed by e, not JT) has not yet been properly distributed by the
Promoter.  The Conventions rule says "When any *Rule* requires a public
message to contain a *fixed* bit of text ..." [emphasis mine]; this
originally referred to removing Puppet Heads and the like, and I think
applying it to this case is tenuous at the least.  Rule 6-4 (Promoter)
says that eir duties are "e) to promptly distribute each Proposal for
voting," not requiring that e submit the actual text of the Proposal.
Thus, no Rule *requires* em to submit a *fixed* piece of text (and I would
have my doubts about whether a Proposal constitutes "fixed" text anyway),
so Conventions can't apply.  Our Promoter may be guilty of accidental
Malpractice, but I think that e has not yet distributed Malenkai's
Proposal.

-Hubert

When in Rome, do as the Visigoths do.

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

From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Fidgeting
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 19:04:05 -0400 (EDT)

I pick up the Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much, Really,
point it at Emperor Ai! Pedrito!, press the button marked "ENERGIZE," and
supply the anagram "Ape Idiom Reporter".

-Hubert

I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met. 

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

From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 730 (TRUE)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 19:18:46 -0400 (EDT)

> The Conventions rule says "When any *Rule* requires a public
> message to contain a *fixed* bit of text ..." [emphasis mine]; 
> [snip] Rule 6-4 (Promoter) says that eir duties are "e) to promptly 
> distribute each Proposal for voting," not requiring that e submit the
> actual text of the Proposal.

That's good enough for me.  The fact that "Conventions" once applied to
Puppet Heads does not matter.

Either the fixed text of the proposal is required, invoking "Conventions",
or the fixed text is not required (which is what the quote above seems to
be arguing), in which case it is clear to me that the text labelled 
Proposal 4371 referred to my proposal, since, if the fixed text is not 
required, judgement is _necessarily required_ to match distributed 
proposals with their actual proposals.  I point out as evidence that with 
both texts side by side, no one, including in the CFJ, ever questioned the
fact that P4371 represented my proposal.

In other words, its a more reasonable interpretation that P4371 was my 
proposal rather than the other alternatives voiced, especially considering 
the general looseness with which the rules have been interpreted 
historically w.r.t. to errors of this nature (game custom/spirit of the
game). Anyway, a nomic doesn't seem all that interesting when it is loose
on errors some of the time (e.g. the example I quoted in my previous 
argument), and then picks nits on them other times, especially given 
the known nature of this promoter error with the actual text of the 
proposal in plain view.

Like I said, we all have to choose the Elvises we wish to believe in, I
guess my long-winded participation in this debate was for me to decide 
for myself whether Elvis lives or not :-)  I'll refer to the game with
the small ruleset as Ackanomic, and the recently-formed game with the
large ruleset as Elvisnomic :-)  You're mileage may vary ;-)

PS, I can understand the Judge's reasoning as submitted _before_ the 
nature of the error was pointed out, and hope no offense was taken. 

Malenkai

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 730 (TRUE)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 21:12:38 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Randy Hall wrote:
> PS, I can understand the Judge's reasoning as submitted _before_ the 
> nature of the error was pointed out, and hope no offense was taken. 

As do I, and I appealed only for completenesses sake, not out of any
perverse desire to drag this on.

--JT in Ackanomic
  Dragon Mage in Elvisnomic.

-- 
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ 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 #263
*******************************