Subject: ackanomic Digest V4 #265
From: [email-masked]
To: ackanomic digest users <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 18:53:58 -0400 (EDT)

ackanomic Digest	Friday, October 01 1999	Volume: 04  Issue: 265

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 730 (TRUE)
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 09:46:57 -0400 (EDT)

Randy Hall wrote:
> 
> K 2 wrote:
> 
> > > Secondly, it seems to me that the _nomicky_ thing to do is to continue
> > > playing the game started by Ackers in 1996 called Ackanomic, to
> > > continue to call it Ackanomic, and to attempt to determine as close as
> > > possible what its game state is.
> >
> > Hopefully CFJ 730 will do this.
> 
> 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.

But that's like saying in a thread where the sky is blue a CFJ on the
matter is obviously true and in the thread where the sky is yellow its
obviously false.

There are two possibilities for verdicts on CFJ 730 - TRUE and Not-a-CFJ
(ie False) - depending on which verdict is determined to be correct will
inform us which is the correct game state.

> 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?

> the argument for c) goes something like this: the promoter probably did
> not have the rule-based power to alter its text, so it existed platonically
> in its submitted form, regardless of what eir mailer did to it.

> 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, 

I favour the reading:
A Voting player may submit a proposal by sending [the proposal's] text
to the Promoter, who shall then post [the proposal] publicly to be voted
on.

Which to me means that the proposal's text is that which is submitted
("by sending its [the proposal's] text"), the failure of the promotor to
accuraily post that text is unfortunate and possibly Malpractice. In
conjuction with Rule 1-2 VII, I think this means that the p4371 was
enacted with the vital line in place and Ackanomic was reduced to one
rule.

> PS, to prevent duplicates, which is the proper list(s) to send
> discussions of this matter to?

acka-research since it is discussion which only effects acka...

> 
> Malenkai

Randy Hall wrote:
> 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.

Personally, I ignored the publicly submitted version and never read it,
however, I read the distributed version assuming it was the offical
version which would be enacted.

> 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),

EA!P! was modifing The Official Rules Document in those cases which as
R6-4-4 reminds us "The Official Rules Document is not the Rules."

> 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.
> 
> 

K 2

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Cycle 38 (yes it occoured prior to P4371)
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 09:47:02 -0400 (EDT)

19 Sep 1999 18:57:41 IB mined
19 Sep 1999 19:36:04 JT mined
19 Sep 1999 12:00:00 spud re-dist
20 Sep 1999 19:03:28 mr no pop visited the book
23 Sep 1999 05:56:29 cycle 37 ended - see below
24 Sep 1999 19:14:12 something happend
26 Sep 1999 10:34:46 auction terminates
26 Sep 1999 12:00:00 spud re-dist
28 Sep 1999 13:22:18 ThinMan nominated for Elder result: (7/20+) not an
elder

The auctions for mr cwm (A$500, else), Mr. Lunatic Fringe (A$ 800,
ThinMan) and Robert Sevin (A$ 666, Dragon Mage) finished on 26 Sep 1999
10:34:46.

End of cycle stuff:

b) All Chartreuse Goose Eggs, Right-Handed Grapefruit and Agenda Hats
that are not being worn are destroyed. All Nemesis Eggplants
with the same condition as an Agenda Hat that was destroyed in this
manner are destroyed. Each player who owns at least one
Chartreuse Goose Card has one Chartreuse Goose Card in eir possession
destroyed. 

IB loses one of eir cards.

c) The winner is given the title of winner of the cycle, and a
Right-Handed Grapefruit and a Champion's Cloak are created in that
player's
possession. If this results in his having two Champion's Cloaks, one of
them is instantly transformed into a Badge of Glory. 

Congrats Quoth.

d) All players who have zero or fewer points are given a Chartreuse
Goose Egg. 

    0   2137 else...if                  (Henry Towsner)
    0    110 Kane                       (Tyrrell McAllister)
    0    100 Grimace                    (Graeme Jefferis)
    0    100 Fortunato                  (Aaron Keesler)
   -2    120 Taser                      (Antonio Rodriguez)

e) If the amount of A$s in circulation plus the value of all extant
Trinkets exceeded the amount in the Treasury at the time this winner
was declared, the following shall occur: 

Not the case

f) All players except the winner have their score halved. The winner has
their score reset to zero. 

final scores:

Next  Score Mannna Ackanomic Name      Status Real Name
----- ----- ------ ------------------- ------ ----------------
 126   252    683 K 2                        (Kelly Kelly)
 146   192   3516 /dev/joe                   (Joseph DeVincentis)
 144   187    973 Clamshell Lawyer           (Eric Plumb)
 141   181   3108 ThinMan                    (John Bollinger)
 139   178    852 Quoth the Raven            (Tom Walmsley)
  80   160   2524 Cthulhu                    (Gavin Logan)
  77   153    979 Blest Lax Monk Pal         (Gavin Doig)
  75   139   1274 Alfvaen                    (Aaron Humphrey)
  61   122   4965 Studge                     (Tom Mueller)
  61   121   4120 Emperor Ai! Pedrito!       (Gabriel Drummond-Cole)
  58   115   1130 Slakko                     (Duncan Richer)
  52   104   4383 Red Mao Gang               (Joseph Traub)
  40    80   1720 mr. no pop culture         (David Scheidt)
  40    79    120 404 Not Found              (Joel Ricker)
  32    63   1400 Calvin N Hobbes            (Thierry Joffrain)
  18    35    881 Pure Haste                 (James McGregor)
  18    35    322 Vynd                       (John McCoy)
  17    33    680 Reductio                   (Elio M. García, Jr.)
   7    13   1080 and                        (Eric Wald)
   6    12    580 danke                      (Bill Palmer)
   6    11    820 IdiotBoy                   (Matt Miller)
   6    11    140 two-star                   (Alexandre Muniz)
   4     7    178 Malenkai                   (Randy Hall)
   1     2    120 Robert Sevin               (Mitchell Harding)
   1     1    210 Burn the Witch             (Jonathan David Amery)
   0     0   2137 else...if                  (Henry Towsner)
   0     0    110 Kane                       (Tyrrell McAllister)
   0     0    100 Grimace                    (Graeme Jefferis)
   0     0    100 Fortunato                  (Aaron Keesler)
   -1   -2    120 Taser                      (Antonio Rodriguez)

g) All players receive A$ equal to the change in their score resulting
from the application of section e). 

See above.

h) If the cycle currently ending has exceeded 30 days in length, all
players who have been vacationing for the entire cycle are removed
from the game as if they have quit. 

If they were then they are.

i) The game cycle number is incremented. 

Cycle 38 I think.

j) All players who are in Gaol are released from Gaol. All players who
are in the Ackanomic Afterlife are relocated to their homes. 

None.

k) If the game state is such that the single winner of the last cycle
would immediately win again upon the resumption of Ackanomic play,
a Chartreuse Goose Card is transferred to that player. 

Not the case.

l) All events specified by other rules to occur at the end of the cycle
occur, in the numeric order of the rule that defines the event [see
rules 593, 8-7 and 8-2-4]. 

Done.

m) Ackanomic play resumes.

Maybe?

K 2

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 730 (Doctor Slakko & K 2 )
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 09:47:14 -0400 (EDT)

This CFJ has been assigned to Doctor Slakko & K 2.

(JT has declined, Quoth? and /dev/joe are on vacation)

Call for Judgement 730 - September 28, 1999
Subject: Which Game?
Initiator: K 2 (28 Sep 1999 0:00 Acka)
Judge: Clamshell Lawyer
Judgement: TRUE
Appeled by: Dragon Mage
Cortex: Doctor Slakko & K 2

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

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.

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 730 (TRUE)
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 09:47:19 -0400 (EDT)

Randy Hall wrote:
> 
> K 2 wrote:
> 
> > > Secondly, it seems to me that the _nomicky_ thing to do is to continue
> > > playing the game started by Ackers in 1996 called Ackanomic, to
> > > continue to call it Ackanomic, and to attempt to determine as close as
> > > possible what its game state is.
> >
> > Hopefully CFJ 730 will do this.
> 
> 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.

But that's like saying in a thread where the sky is blue a CFJ on the
matter is obviously true and in the thread where the sky is yellow its
obviously false.

There are two possibilities for verdicts on CFJ 730 - TRUE and Not-a-CFJ
(ie False) - depending on which verdict is determined to be correct will
inform us which is the correct game state.

> 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?

> the argument for c) goes something like this: the promoter probably did
> not have the rule-based power to alter its text, so it existed platonically
> in its submitted form, regardless of what eir mailer did to it.

> 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, 

I favour the reading:
A Voting player may submit a proposal by sending [the proposal's] text
to the Promoter, who shall then post [the proposal] publicly to be voted
on.

Which to me means that the proposal's text is that which is submitted
("by sending its [the proposal's] text"), the failure of the promotor to
accuraily post that text is unfortunate and possibly Malpractice. In
conjuction with Rule 1-2 VII, I think this means that the p4371 was
enacted with the vital line in place and Ackanomic was reduced to one
rule.

> PS, to prevent duplicates, which is the proper list(s) to send
> discussions of this matter to?

acka-research since it is discussion which only effects acka...

> 
> Malenkai

Randy Hall wrote:
> 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.

Personally, I ignored the publicly submitted version and never read it,
however, I read the distributed version assuming it was the offical
version which would be enacted.

> 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),

EA!P! was modifing The Official Rules Document in those cases which as
R6-4-4 reminds us "The Official Rules Document is not the Rules."

> 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.
> 
> 

K 2

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Cycle 38 (yes it occoured prior to P4371)
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 09:47:28 -0400 (EDT)

19 Sep 1999 18:57:41 IB mined
19 Sep 1999 19:36:04 JT mined
19 Sep 1999 12:00:00 spud re-dist
20 Sep 1999 19:03:28 mr no pop visited the book
23 Sep 1999 05:56:29 cycle 37 ended - see below
24 Sep 1999 19:14:12 something happend
26 Sep 1999 10:34:46 auction terminates
26 Sep 1999 12:00:00 spud re-dist
28 Sep 1999 13:22:18 ThinMan nominated for Elder result: (7/20+) not an
elder

The auctions for mr cwm (A$500, else), Mr. Lunatic Fringe (A$ 800,
ThinMan) and Robert Sevin (A$ 666, Dragon Mage) finished on 26 Sep 1999
10:34:46.

End of cycle stuff:

b) All Chartreuse Goose Eggs, Right-Handed Grapefruit and Agenda Hats
that are not being worn are destroyed. All Nemesis Eggplants
with the same condition as an Agenda Hat that was destroyed in this
manner are destroyed. Each player who owns at least one
Chartreuse Goose Card has one Chartreuse Goose Card in eir possession
destroyed. 

IB loses one of eir cards.

c) The winner is given the title of winner of the cycle, and a
Right-Handed Grapefruit and a Champion's Cloak are created in that
player's
possession. If this results in his having two Champion's Cloaks, one of
them is instantly transformed into a Badge of Glory. 

Congrats Quoth.

d) All players who have zero or fewer points are given a Chartreuse
Goose Egg. 

    0   2137 else...if                  (Henry Towsner)
    0    110 Kane                       (Tyrrell McAllister)
    0    100 Grimace                    (Graeme Jefferis)
    0    100 Fortunato                  (Aaron Keesler)
   -2    120 Taser                      (Antonio Rodriguez)

e) If the amount of A$s in circulation plus the value of all extant
Trinkets exceeded the amount in the Treasury at the time this winner
was declared, the following shall occur: 

Not the case

f) All players except the winner have their score halved. The winner has
their score reset to zero. 

final scores:

Next  Score Mannna Ackanomic Name      Status Real Name
----- ----- ------ ------------------- ------ ----------------
 126   252    683 K 2                        (Kelly Kelly)
 146   192   3516 /dev/joe                   (Joseph DeVincentis)
 144   187    973 Clamshell Lawyer           (Eric Plumb)
 141   181   3108 ThinMan                    (John Bollinger)
 139   178    852 Quoth the Raven            (Tom Walmsley)
  80   160   2524 Cthulhu                    (Gavin Logan)
  77   153    979 Blest Lax Monk Pal         (Gavin Doig)
  75   139   1274 Alfvaen                    (Aaron Humphrey)
  61   122   4965 Studge                     (Tom Mueller)
  61   121   4120 Emperor Ai! Pedrito!       (Gabriel Drummond-Cole)
  58   115   1130 Slakko                     (Duncan Richer)
  52   104   4383 Red Mao Gang               (Joseph Traub)
  40    80   1720 mr. no pop culture         (David Scheidt)
  40    79    120 404 Not Found              (Joel Ricker)
  32    63   1400 Calvin N Hobbes            (Thierry Joffrain)
  18    35    881 Pure Haste                 (James McGregor)
  18    35    322 Vynd                       (John McCoy)
  17    33    680 Reductio                   (Elio M. García, Jr.)
   7    13   1080 and                        (Eric Wald)
   6    12    580 danke                      (Bill Palmer)
   6    11    820 IdiotBoy                   (Matt Miller)
   6    11    140 two-star                   (Alexandre Muniz)
   4     7    178 Malenkai                   (Randy Hall)
   1     2    120 Robert Sevin               (Mitchell Harding)
   1     1    210 Burn the Witch             (Jonathan David Amery)
   0     0   2137 else...if                  (Henry Towsner)
   0     0    110 Kane                       (Tyrrell McAllister)
   0     0    100 Grimace                    (Graeme Jefferis)
   0     0    100 Fortunato                  (Aaron Keesler)
   -1   -2    120 Taser                      (Antonio Rodriguez)

g) All players receive A$ equal to the change in their score resulting
from the application of section e). 

See above.

h) If the cycle currently ending has exceeded 30 days in length, all
players who have been vacationing for the entire cycle are removed
from the game as if they have quit. 

If they were then they are.

i) The game cycle number is incremented. 

Cycle 38 I think.

j) All players who are in Gaol are released from Gaol. All players who
are in the Ackanomic Afterlife are relocated to their homes. 

None.

k) If the game state is such that the single winner of the last cycle
would immediately win again upon the resumption of Ackanomic play,
a Chartreuse Goose Card is transferred to that player. 

Not the case.

l) All events specified by other rules to occur at the end of the cycle
occur, in the numeric order of the rule that defines the event [see
rules 593, 8-7 and 8-2-4]. 

Done.

m) Ackanomic play resumes.

Maybe?

K 2

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

From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 730 (TRUE)
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 10:17:45 -0400 (EDT)

Eric Plumb wrote:

>                                               It seems the options are
>three (and I apologize here, for I believe someone has already presented
>these three options and I do not want to try and pass them off as my own):
>either a) Proposal 4371 refers to the Proposal posted publicly, and is
>enacted as if it had the post's text rather than the distributed text,
>b) P4371 *is* Malenkai's Proposal, but is enacted as distributed despite
>the discrepancy, or c) P4371 has nothing to do with that Proposal and is a
>figment of the Promoter's imagination, or a misattributed Proposal by the
>Promoter; either way, Malenkai's Proposal has yet to be distributed.
>
>All have their problems.  a) "Pointers to Proposals" is an entirely new
>and incredibly dangerous can of worms.  b) gives the Promoter the power to
>change a Proposal's text and distribute it officially in any form e likes,
>and c) is rather facile, reminiscent of wishful thinking.
>
>Although I realize I was arguing for case c) earlier, and I believe it
>still has its merits, something I realized made me think game custom
>(as well as Occam's Razor and pragmatism) might support case b) despite
>its obvious faults.

In this shrubbery's opinion, (b) is utterly unsupportable.  As I argued
before, Rule 2 is clear that the submitter determines the text of a
proposal by way of submitting it to the promoter.  The document distributed
by Ackabot as proposal 4371 did not contain the full text of Malenkai's
proposal, and therefore could not have been the same proposal unless it
was interpreted according to (a).

The biggest problem I see with (c) is that no one seems to believe it to
represent the true state of affairs.  Indeed, of particular note is that
the (erstwhile) Promoter does not seem to believe it, as he would _still_
have not distributed Malenkai's proposal if (c) were the case.  Player
opinion about the game state becomes an important factor in determining
these things when the rules are unclear.

As for (a) being "entirely new and incredibly dangerous": 
1) The idea may be new, but that doesn't mean that the rules have not
   mandated it for a long time.  On of the things that the pragmatism
   rule does (implicitly) is to remove the barrier to reinterpretation
   of long-established rules.
2) New, dangerous, or any other characteristic of a rule's effects is no
   justification for ignoring those effects.  We have had dangerous rules
   before.  (Anybody remember Senate Resolutions? :-))
3) If (a) is the case then the problem has solved itself anyway.

>I hope you take none from my attempts to preserve the Acka I love.

As Malenkai wrote, it is either preserved or not already.  I have no problem
with you seeking arguments for the state of affairs you prefer to be the
true state, but I hope that you will not allow your quest to cloud your
judgement.

For myself, although I previously was of the opinion that fat-acka was the
true state, recently-revealed facts and discussion have led me to reverse
that opinion.

In any case, if fat-acka has been repealed it can still be preserved by
starting it anew with the fat ruleset and an appropriate initial game
state.  Indeed, that seems to have been done, and nothing prevents that
game from continuing.

Regards,

John "ThinMan" Bollinger

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 730 (TRUE)
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 11:32:14 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, John Bollinger wrote:
> The biggest problem I see with (c) is that no one seems to believe it to
> represent the true state of affairs.  Indeed, of particular note is that
> the (erstwhile) Promoter does not seem to believe it, as he would _still_
> have not distributed Malenkai's proposal if (c) were the case.  Player
> opinion about the game state becomes an important factor in determining
> these things when the rules are unclear.

Let me shed a small bit of light here since /dev/joe is on Vacation and is
out here in Seattle.  His comment to me the other night when he was over
for dinner (yes, I have pictures we are in fact two seperate
individuals, the pictures showing us to be twins were obviously faked :)
was that he had had to hand feed Mal's prop to the bot and the missing
line was in fact a cut and paste error.  IE, he goofed and the intent of
the promoter was in fact to distributed 4371.   He would be guilty of
malpractice if I believed that such a rule still existed (I have at this
point become convinced that Malenkai's argument holds sufficient water and
that (a) is the only possible course of events).   I believe therefore
that I as well as Malenkai and ThinMan and in fact everyone else is a
Shrubbery and that regardless of some people claiming that a game of
ackanomic exists with the set of rules in which 4371 was null, have not
validly joined that game since it was created ex nihilo from the
imaginations of all concerned.   In that case, we are all what would have
been called Shrubbery by that rule, and there in fact is not Registrar so
we cannot even change that state of affairs should we wish to do so.

> As Malenkai wrote, it is either preserved or not already.  I have no problem
> with you seeking arguments for the state of affairs you prefer to be the
> true state, but I hope that you will not allow your quest to cloud your
> judgement.
> 
> For myself, although I previously was of the opinion that fat-acka was the
> true state, recently-revealed facts and discussion have led me to reverse
> that opinion.
> 
> In any case, if fat-acka has been repealed it can still be preserved by
> starting it anew with the fat ruleset and an appropriate initial game
> state.  Indeed, that seems to have been done, and nothing prevents that
> game from continuing.

Possibly except for what I mentioned above which is that the fat-acka
ruleset provide no way for a player to join such a game except in
accordance with the rules.  If it really went away there would need to be
a lot of selective memory going on (this never happens :).

--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: CFJ 730 (TRUE)
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 14:23:46 -0400 (EDT)

JT wrote:

> [we] have not validly joined that game since it was created ex nihilo from 
> the imaginations of all concerned.   In that case, we are all what would
> have been called Shrubbery by that rule, and there in fact is not Registrar 
> so we cannot even change that state of affairs should we wish to do so.

I think you can create a game state ex nihilo that includes the state facts
that natural person X is game player Y.  Indeed, this is what Ackers and
a few others did a few years ago (which is why I always argued with breadbox
about the day the game actually started :-)).  (Most nomics do not, as part
of their I.R.S., define the initial game state -- I believe they should,
and tried to be careful about that with the kernel prop, in particular on
the issue of players.  BTW, I once considered constructing a PWCFJ based on
the fact that the initial game state was undefined, thus the fact of whether
or not there were three blue sharks in the green box could not be determined
with finality :-)).

However, to do this, there needs to be some _agreement_ in the collective
imaginations of those doing it, I suppose.  So, I believe I am a Shubbery
while many others may believe I am on vacation (and Speaker elect) in the
new game.  I think this is ok, I'll play w.r.t. to my view of the game
state of this game, and continue to be a Shubbery, and others can play 
to theirs (and impeach me for not doing anything, I guess), and it should 
work ok if enough people agree (and as JT said, this can be tough).

> Possibly except for what I mentioned above which is that the fat-acka
> ruleset provide no way for a player to join such a game except in
> accordance with the rules.  

Unless, as I said, enough people agree that natural person X was created
as Registrar in the I.G.S.

Malenkai

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 730 (TRUE)
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 17:20:00 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Randy Hall wrote:
> I think you can create a game state ex nihilo that includes the state facts
> that natural person X is game player Y.  Indeed, this is what Ackers and
> a few others did a few years ago (which is why I always argued with breadbox
> about the day the game actually started :-)).  (Most nomics do not, as part
> of their I.R.S., define the initial game state -- I believe they should,
> and tried to be careful about that with the kernel prop, in particular on
> the issue of players.  BTW, I once considered constructing a PWCFJ based on
> the fact that the initial game state was undefined, thus the fact of whether
> or not there were three blue sharks in the green box could not be determined
> with finality :-)).

Yes, true enough.  However the current fat-acka game state was never
created/specified in such a way :)  My current belief (which I'm probably
going to hold to at this point unless given real arguments to the contrary
that make sense to me) is that while the rules of fat-acka might exist
ex-nihilo, I have not (nor have I seen any other person) join that game in
accordance to it's rules.

The only way around that I can see if if the ex-nihilo creation was to
take the game state as it had been if P4371 wasn't valid and create that.
In which case we all are members of a game which we haven't joined
(shrug).  I guess I can live with that, and if I cannot, well, you cannot
force me to do anything :)

--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: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Various Important Results
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 17:22:12 -0400 (EDT)

1. Results of the election for President:

Ape Idiom Reporter
* K 2
* Clamshell Lawyer
* Cthulhu
Dragon Mage

Ape Idiom Reporter is elected president

2. Results of the CRD hearing.

Pres is scamming
* K 2
* Clamshell Lawyer
* Blest Lax Monk Pal
* Cthulhu
Patch the Crisis

The CRD is defeated, and an impeachment paper is filed against me.  Vote
publicly (not in response to this message). YES would remove me from
office, NO keeps me in office.

3. reply to vote for the following office:

Scaremonger:
*Clamshell Lawyer
*Cthulhu

4. Clamshell Lawyer was the only nominee for the following offices:

Spelling Exchequer and OiCoRT

E is granted these offices.

5. There were no nominees for trinket-harfer.  The office remains vacant.

-- Ape Idiom Reporter B(Scam)
 Crazy French-Scotsman * Student (Scamology)
  Count Tabula * DeeJay * Dungeon Master * Herald * President *
Treasure-Harfer

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

From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Forgot some stuff (spelling bee)
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 17:31:41 -0400 (EDT)

1. I was the only nominee for rule-harfer.  I appoint myself to the office.
2. I initiate a flight of the spelling bee to sting the following in rule
4-10-2:

ammendments to amendments

Ardvark to Aardvark

-- Ape Idiom Reporter B(Scam)
 Crazy French-Scotsman * Student (Scamology)
  Count Tabula * DeeJay * Dungeon Master * Herald * President * Rule-Harfer
* Treasure-Harfer

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

From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Elvisacka: CFJ 730 (TRUE)
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 17:32:54 -0400 (EDT)

> In which case we all are members of a game which we haven't joined
> (shrug).  I guess I can live with that, and if I cannot, well, you cannot
> force me to do anything :)

Just like we cannot force the game to change its name to avoid 
confusion in the nomic community, particularly for prospective
players.  We can ask politely though :-)

Malenkai

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

From: Ape Idiom Reporter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Oust Speaker Mal
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 17:48:44 -0400 (EDT)

Malenkai does not even acknowledge that e is a player of Ackanomic.

I author an impeachment paper against Malenkai as Speaker.

To succeed, this requires:

At least 25% of the active players votes, yes or no (5/19 active players)
Either 10 YES votes or at least 2/3 of the votes be YES.

I vote YES.

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

From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: a bit of action.
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 18:02:13 -0400 (EDT)

OK.

I declare that, if Ackanomic as I know it does not exist, which I do not
admit and which I will not recognize, I create a game called Ackanomic with
the ruleset and gamestate that I think it has, that is the ruleset and
gamestate that occurred assuming P4371 as either invalid or null.  So.
Now, whatever you believe happened, there are two overlapping Ackanomics
with the same gamestate and such: one over 3 years old and one just created
out of my head.  So, uh, in the Ackanomic *I* play, you guys are not
shrubbery no matter what.

-- Ape Idiom Reporter B(Scam)
 Crazy French-Scotsman * Student (Scamology)
  Count Tabula * DeeJay * Dungeon Master * Herald * President * Rule-Harfer
* Treasure-Harfer

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: a bit of action.
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 18:06:07 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
> I declare that, if Ackanomic as I know it does not exist, which I do not
> admit and which I will not recognize, I create a game called Ackanomic with
> the ruleset and gamestate that I think it has, that is the ruleset and
> gamestate that occurred assuming P4371 as either invalid or null.  So.
> Now, whatever you believe happened, there are two overlapping Ackanomics
> with the same gamestate and such: one over 3 years old and one just created
> out of my head.  So, uh, in the Ackanomic *I* play, you guys are not
> shrubbery no matter what.

Since I have not agreed to play in the game which Mr. Gabe Drummond-Cole
possibly just created out of his own very twisted imagination, if such a
game exists, I leave it.   Please note that I am not hereby leaving any
other version of ackanomic which might possibly exist other than that one
possibly created by Gabe Drummond-Cole.  Out of amusement, I remain an
observer in his psychotic break.

--JT, laughing his way to the bank

-- 
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ 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: Elvisacka: a bit of action.
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 18:23:03 -0400 (EDT)

Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:

> I create a game [...] So. [...] there are two overlapping Ackanomics
> with the same gamestate

I change my name to George in the game Gabe just created ;-)

George

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

From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Oust Speaker Mal
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 18:37:27 -0400 (EDT)

It was written:
>Malenkai does not even acknowledge that e is a player of Ackanomic.
>
>I author an impeachment paper against Malenkai as Speaker.
>
>To succeed, this requires:
>
>At least 25% of the active players votes, yes or no (5/19 active players)
>Either 10 YES votes or at least 2/3 of the votes be YES.
>
>I vote YES.
>

I vote YES.

Studge

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

From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Various Important Results
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 18:39:33 -0400 (EDT)

EA!P! wrote:
>2. Results of the CRD hearing.
>
>Pres is scamming
>* K 2
>* Clamshell Lawyer
>* Blest Lax Monk Pal
>* Cthulhu
>Patch the Crisis
>
>The CRD is defeated, and an impeachment paper is filed against me.  Vote
>publicly (not in response to this message). YES would remove me from
>office, NO keeps me in office.
>

I vote NO.

Studge

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

From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Time to cash in our chips, boys.
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 18:43:39 -0400 (EDT)

I give my ASS token to Studge.
I go to my home.

I own 6 otzma cards.
I have a Blue Cross Bonus.
I own the Really Big Blue Thing.

-- Ape Idiom Reporter B(Scam)
 Crazy French-Scotsman * Student (Scamology)
  Acting President * Acting Speaker * Acting Trinket-Harfer * Count Tabula
   DeeJay * Dungeon Master * Herald * Rule-Harfer * Treasure-Harfer

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

From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Time to cash in our chips, boys.
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 18:53:50 -0400 (EDT)

Ape Idiom Reporter wrote:
>I give my ASS token to Studge.
>I go to my home.
>
>I own 6 otzma cards.
>I have a Blue Cross Bonus.
>I own the Really Big Blue Thing.
>

I go to the library.  I place the token in the banna slot and play The
Gnome by pink floyd.  (The song that causes Gnomes Day to happen).

Studge

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

End of ackanomic Digest V4 #265
*******************************