Statement:

The Judicial Order made by Zagarna in the Judgement on RFJ20 was invalid.

Ruling:

true

Plaintiff's Analysis:

The judgement given was "FALSE", the line "since I am such a good judge that I deserve a win" was not part of the judgement (Rule 237). The only reason Judges can issue Judicial Orders is in order to 'bring the game state into accord with the result of the Judgment' (Rule 214), and the order clearly does not do this, and is therefore invalid. The order should be vacated (Rule 217). [[Note: This RFJ does not attempt to overturn the Judgement given on RFJ20, just the Order.]]

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

Rule 237 states that the only possible judgements on an RFJ are True, False, and Undecided (I omit the Refusal option here because Zagarna clearly did not refuse to judge the RFJ). In this case, Zagarna ruled that the statement for RFJ 20 was false. Having done so, Zagarna was free to give judicial orders which would bring the gamestate into accord with his judgement. However, while he attempted to give a judicial order, it was not an order based on the RFJ's truth or falsehood--it was based on his comment that he was a good judge. The order did not bring the gamestate into accord with the the fact that the statement was false--it was meant to alter the gamestate according to the judge's commentary and justification of his decision.

As per Rule 214, a Judge can "issue one or more Judicial Orders to bring the game state into accord with the result of the Judgment." A Judgement, according to Rule 237, only states the truth or falsehood of the statement being judged. While Judges may give analysis or commentary on their judgements (as I do here), such comments are incapable of significance in the gamestate--they only provide personal justification for the Judge's ruling of true, false, or undecided on the RFJ at hand.

The Judicial Order Zagarna attempted to give did not bring the gamestate into accord with his ruling of False on the statement, "Alterations to Active Proposals or Motions which are not recognised by the start of an nweek's voting do not alter any Ballot Issues." It instead attempted to alter gamestate according to opinions expressed in the Zagarna's subsequent discussion, and as such is an inappropriate Judicial Order.

Judicial Orders:
1) The Administrator will remove any points from Zagarna's score, and any Wins on his record, that may have been awarded as a result of the judgement on RFJ 20.

Statement:

The Judicial Order made by Potter in the Judgement on RFJ26 was invalid.

Ruling:

false

Plaintiff's Analysis:

the order was:" 1) The Administrator will remove any points from Zagarna's score, and any Wins on his record, that may have been awarded as a result of the judgement on RFJ 20 "

Rule 114/0 clearly states: "An Order is a command directed to some Agent, known a the recipient, requiring em to perform exactly one action.". Potter's order requires the administrator to perform two actions, remove points and remove wins on my record.

Zagarna, who is sticking to this thing just for the comic value.

P.S. Then again, I am also curious to see what would happen if this RFJ is ruled true. The order would be vacated, and I would still have my win ( and minus one million points *grin*, if nobody objects to the kid's action ) so my blatant crime of abuse of power would go unpunished. And THEN....

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

[none --Admin.]

Statement:

Debts are not Objects as defined by Rule 316/0.

Ruling:

false

Plaintiff's Analysis:

Rule 347/0 states that "Debts are objects" (note the lowercase spelling of "objects"). Rule 347/0 also states that "Debts are divisible", but Objects as defined by Rule 316/0 are "indivisible".

I conclude that debts are not Objects as defined by Rule 316/0.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

Rule 316/0 takes this in account by stating: "Objects may not be created, destroyed, or otherwise altered, transferred, or adulterated except as allowed by the Rules.". As for the spelling it is only a minor technicality better suited by a motion to trivially amend.

Statement:

NomicHomes cannot be transferred.

Ruling:

true

Plaintiff's Analysis:

Rule 316/0 states that "Objects (...) may not be transferred (...) except as allowed by the Rules".

Rule 340/0 defines that a NomicHome is an instance of a Place. Places are defined by Rule 327/0, which does not allow them to be transferred.

Rule 340/0 includes the following statement:

"NomicHomes can be bought and sold in the same manner as any Object".

In this statement, "any Object" refers to Objects in general, i.e. Objects as defined by Rule 316/0, which cannot be transferred. Thus the statement defines that NomicHomes cannot be transferred.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

The plaintiff's analysis is accurate, the only interesting thing is that if rule 340 had an only slightly different wording, for example: "NomicHomes can be bought and sold in the same manner as any other Object" , it would permit transferability of NomicHomes, since the only other objects we have in the game are points, and those are transferable :-)

Statement:

It was possible to make a Request for Judgment before the 11th of November 2000.

Ruling:

true

Plaintiff's Analysis:

Rule 234/0 : Requests for Judgment:
A Request for Judgment is a Personal Order.

Rule 114/0 : Orders:
An Order must be either Legislative, Motive, Administrative, Judicial, or Private.

Rule 216/0 : Private Orders:
A Private Order is any Order that is not Legislative, Motive, Administrative, or Judicial.

Although Rule 234/0 attempted to define a Request for Judgment (sic) as a "Personal" Order, rule 216/0 had precedence, and redefined it as being a Private Order, and thus made it valid by Rule 114/0

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

Rule 234/0 at the time read: "A Request for Judgment is a Personal Order. An Agent may, at any time, initiate judicial proceedings in any matter by making a Request for Judgment. That Agent shall be known as the Plaintiff with regard to the Request. A Request for Judgment consists of a Statement to be judged, and analysis as the Plaintiff deems appropriate. The implicit recipient is the Administrator." Rule 216/0 also reads: "A Private Order is any Order that is not Legislative, Motive, Administrative, or Judicial."

A RFJ is stated to be a personal order, and rule 216 does not disagree by saying that it is not a private order. [[Double negatives are hard to follow sometimes!!]] There is no explicit definition for Personal Order in the rules. Nonetheless, I can find nothing in the rules that would make the statement false in that there has always been a method for making a RFJ since the game began.

The spirit of the game also seems to confirm this in that due to any possible (not found by this Judge for this Judgement) technicality that might render the statement false, and for creating a precedent, the power of the Judge to overrule a large array of Judgements via a technicality must be limited. I will stop short of making a Judicial Order to this effect and let this Judgement stand as a precedent.

Statement:

Voting without notifying the Administrator of your votes is possible [[if not entirely practical]]

Ruling:

false

Plaintiff's Analysis:

There is nothing in the rules that I can find which states how one should vote. Therefore, it is entirely possible to vote by any means one wishes, and one is fully justified in complaining about the actions that ought due to other rules to result from their votes not being carried out even if one has not actually posted one's votes in a way seen by the Administrator. This system may be open to abuse, as such private votes may be said by the player to be anything they like. [[I intend to write up a proposal to fix this when I get time, but a RFJ seemed more fun right now.]]

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

The rules clearly state that actions have to be taken in public fora (R112/0, Fora), and voting is an action. A Player may however vote without using a public forum by notifying the Administrator (R226/0, Secret Voting).

Since the Administrator is the person resposible for counting the votes (R225/1, Vote Counting), it is obvious that "casting a vote" should be interpreted as "making the vote available to the Administrator". The votes must be made available to the Administrator during the voting period, because "Only votes cast during voting are counted for voting purposes" (R225/1).

Statement:

The modification Benjamin made to his NomicHome was invalid.

Ruling:

false

Plaintiff's Analysis:

Rule 340/0 states:

"Contents can only be modified by adding an Object elsewhere acquired, adding a Player with eir consent or removing an Object or Player already present."

Benjamin has added content which he did not acquire elsewhere.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

The Plaintiff points out that the contents of a NomicHome can only be modified "by adding an Object elsewhere acquired, adding a Player with eir consent or removing an Object or Player already present" (rule 340/2). Benjamin did indeed attempt to alter his content by adding something. By the above, it could only have been Objects he was adding. Rule 316/0 states "Objects may not be created, destroyed, or otherwise altered, transferred, or adulterated except as allowed by the Rules." So he couldn't have just made those Objects he attempted to add.

Statement:

It is possible for a Player to not follow the Rules

Ruling:

true

Plaintiff's Analysis:

As justification for this I point to Rule 350/0 entitled "Joel must Randal". The Rule clearly states that a Randal must be performed within 10 days of the effective date of the rule, Feb 19, 2001. By Feb 29, 2001 there was no Randal, and even by today, March 6, 2001 there has been no Randal. This time limit expired before Rule 357/0 "Randal Judgements" had taken effect on March 1, 2001. Therefore it is obvious that a Player may break any rule that e wishes at any time. The purpose of this Judgement is not to force the completion of Rule 350/0, it is to clarify the fact that the Randal did not take place during the designated time as stated within the Rule.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

This strikes me as very possibly the single most important issue the Courts have yet been asked to decide. The relevant Rule for deciding this matter is R101/0, quoted here:

"All game entities must always abide by all the Rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules."

That the Rules are binding on Players is not ambiguous. What is unclear is what sort of Rules we have. Are they Laws or laws---i.e., do they define what is possible, similar to physical laws, or merely what is permissible, as statutory laws? This is a metaphysical question, and an odd one at that, since it deals with the nature of the conceptual space we have constructed rather than the nature of the world itself. Moreover, rarely does an opportunity to do applied metaphysics present itself outside of the philosophy of science. But I digress.

Put another way, what is at state here is whether actions which violate the Rules are impossible, or merely illegal. As noted, the Rules provide no explicit statements about the matter at hand. What about indirect evidence?

"Players" could take "actions" (bot used advisedly here, not in the technical sense) that would violate certain existing Rules. E.g., R354/0 is one such Rule. R354/0, inter alia, prohibits the further distribution of secret Party documents by Players who have seen them as a result of having been Judges. There should be no doubt that a person who has been sent such information would thereafter be capable of posting it to one of the game mailing lists. Taking this to be the act of a Player argues for Rules that are laws, not Laws. Further support for such a view is provided by R350/0. It requires certain undoubtedly physical actions, which though not impossible, could certainly fail to be performed. If our Rules were Laws, nothing they mandate could fail to occur.

The picture is not so clear as that, however, and there are a number of factors which muddy the waters a bit, e.g., one might suppose Rules which it is possible to violate would include penalties for flaunting them. An inspection of the Rules reveals that the vast majority do not include penalties, nor do they even hint that violating them might be possible. Moreover, it may be argued---plausibly, I think---that Rules which do specify penalties, e.g., R325/1 on Bankruptcy, do so in such a way that incurring the penalty does not constitute a violation of the Rule, but rather is perfectly in accord with its provisions.

If, in fact, the Rules are Laws, that R101 is amendable by a majority vote (or at all, for that matter!) is problematic. E.g., we could amend R101 such that is unambiguously claimed our Rules to be laws, not Laws. That is to say, a contingent event---the outcome of voting, which is itself determined by a number of other contingent events---could cause the force of our Rules to change from necessary to contingent. This is bizarre. In the language of modal logic, our game world is one in which things which are necessary are not necessarily necessary. (For those familiar with modal logic, this would mean that the modal system of our game world is neither S4 nor S5. Hmmm.) Now, a question arises as to whether this is a correct characterization of R101---that R101, or more generally, _some Rule_ actually, or potentially serves as the anchor for the metaphysics of our game world, and whether as a consequence of the malleability of our Ruleset, that our metaphysics is malleable as well.

Sources external to the Game seem to regard game rules as statutory. On reading the appendix on Nomic in Suber's _The Paradox of Self-Amendment_, one gets the impression that Suber views the rules as statutory rather than necessary; however, this is unsurprising as he devised Nomic for the purpose of exploring such laws. One of the annotations to Agora's R101/1, part of which is comparable to our R101/0, seems to indicate that in their game, the rules are statutory, noting that by CFJ 1132, "A Player failing to perform a duty required by the Rules within a reasonable time may be in violation of the Rules..."---an impossible state if the Rules placed necessary constraints on action.

Consider the negation of the statment: ~PEx(Px & Vxr) This is equivalent to NAx(~Px v ~Vxr). That is, "It is necessary that for any x, either x is not a Player or x does not violate the Rules." Note the lack of causal implication, e.g., that violating the Rules would cause one to cease being a Player. If, for instance, a chess player moves a knight forward one space along a rank or file, it is not that e has ceased to be a chess player, but rather that e is no longer playing chess. Such an observation is only possible, however, because the rules of chess are unambiguous---there could be no disagreements about what a constitutes a legal move. In our Game, and Nomics in general, this is not the case. What is legal is mediated by our (varying) interpretations of the rules. Nomic is fundamentally a language game. Thus, while it is possible to violate the rules---and it will become increasingly so as their complexity grows---we need not recognize such violations as permissible moves. It is the very purpose of the courts is to reverse them.

Statement:

The Player Joel is not in violation of R350/0.

Ruling:

false

Plaintiff's Analysis:

R350 does not require me to Randal. The first sentence states "The Player known as Joel Uckelman is ordered to Randal once within 10 days after this rule takes effect." There hasn't been a Player known as Joel Uckelman since 16 February, and R350 did not exist prior to 19 February. Though the Proposal existed before I changed my name, it was not updated to reflect that change, so in the form it was adopted it simply does not refer to me. Moreover, I cannot possibly be held accountable for the proposer's negligence in failing to alter the Proposal as a result of my name change, as the contents of unadopted Proposals are not binding. Nor are Rule titles, for that matter: Though the Rule title contains my name, Rule titles do not have the force of Rule.

Also, it should be noted that the only other such naming instance in the Rules is in R208/1, which actually does refer to me, as "the Player whose real name is Joel Uckelman". Clearly this refers, as there exists a Player, namely Joel, whose real name is Joel Uckelman. For contrast, a quick check of the Roster will verify that there does not exist a Player known as Joel Uckelman.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

Rule 204/1 contains the text:
"An Agent may initiate changing eir name to another uniquely identifying name by notifying the Administrator."
and
Rule 2/0 contains the text:
"All game entities must have uniquely identifying names."

These rules cover how each game entity has a unique identifying name and how to change that identifier. But the definition of a name in Merriam-Webster is:
"1a : a word or phrase that constitutes the distinctive designation of a person or thing
b : a word or symbol used in logic to designate an entity"

By this definition it is clear that the name is just an identifier for the Player, and not the Player eimself. The question now becomes is the Player Joel the same entity as the former Player Joel Uckelman. And is it known to the game that the Player Joel is the same entity as the former Player Joel Uckelman.

This question is more difficult in that we have to decide whether changing the name, according to the game rules, also changed the entity as viewable to the game. This could have severe ramifications if the name change also changed the entity. By the reasoning of the Plantiff:

"> Also, it should be noted that the only other such naming instance in
>the Rules is in R208/1, which actually does refer to me, as "the Player
>whose real name is Joel Uckelman". Clearly this refers, as there exists
>a Player, namely Joel, whose real name is Joel Uckelman. For contrast, a
>quick check of the Roster will verify that there does not exist a Player
>known as Joel Uckelman."

The claim follows that because there is no Player named Joel Uckelman, the Player Joel does not have to obey Rule 350/0. This can be extended to reason that Joel Uckelman had Points and Objects and Offices within the game that did not belong to the Player Joel. Rule 208/1 states the Player Joel Uckelman is the initial Administrator and provides means for electing a new Administrator. The Rule also states that the Officer stays in Office until e resigns or is removed from eir Office by other means. There was no election of a new Administrator and Joel is not the initial Administrator, therefore strictly according to the Rules, Joel cannot be the current Administrator.

Unless we conclude that the entity that was previously known to the game as Joel Uckelman is the same entity now knows as Joel. It is clear that the other Players in the game know that Joel and Joel Uckelman are the same Player. First there was no motion to add the Player Joel, the change was conducted via Rule 204/1 where Joel Uckelman stated his request to change his name to Joel. Second, the Player Joel took possession of the Points, Objects and Offices that previously Joel Uckelman had obtained. Third, there was no objection by any of the Players in any public forum to the transfer of Points, Objects and Offices to the new Player Joel.

By this reasoning it is clear that the Player Joel is the same entity as the previously known Joel Uckelman. Joel has the same Points, Objects and Offices as Joel Uckelman and is bound by the same Rules as Joel Uckelman. In addition, for the ease of convention and for the spirit of the game, this judgement is necessary in order to relieve many problems that could occur if it is determined that changing a name will relieve a Player of any responsibility to a Rule or Motion while maintaining eir Points, Objects and Offices at previous levels.

Statement:

The modification Benjamin made to his NomicHome was invalid.

Ruling:

true

Plaintiff's Analysis:

Rule 340/0 states:

"Contents can only be modified by adding an Object elsewhere acquired, adding a Player with eir consent or removing an Object or Player already present."

Benjamin has added content which he did not acquire elsewhere.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

The following items which Benjamin added as contents are not objects in the game:

a half-consumed 40 (of liquor)
3 dirty magazines
a thermal sleeping bag
several newspapers

The structure of his message made it clear that these were meant to be contents and not simply part of the description.

Statement:

Upon passage of any Bank Motion issued by the Tax Collector, a Motive Order is issued by Rule 319/0 forcing the repayment of the points specified from the debtor to the bank.

Ruling:

false

Plaintiff's Analysis:

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

The sentence in question in rule 319 is the following:

"If it passes then a Motive Order is issued for the repayment of the debt, to be performed as soon as possible."

Yes, this would seem to force repayment. However, this refers to a Motion for Repayment, not a Bank Motion. There is a distinction.

The wording here is unfortunate. A Bank Motion is defined in rule 317/2 and is a means by which the Player community have to force the Bank to take certain actions, with or without the agreement of the Banker. If the Players feel they don't have enough points, for example, they could order the Bank to transfer to every player 10 points. The Bank, however, is an agent just as other agents are and cannot force a player, outside of rules-defined mechanisms, to transfer points.

A Motion for Repayment applies to any debt-situation, whether it involves the bank or not. Normally this must be done by the agent to whom the debt is owed. The exception is the Bank, whose Motions For Repayment are submitted by the Tax Collector.

The closest a Bank Motion can come to forcing a player to pay eir debt is to order the Bank to issue a Motion for Repayment.

Statement:

The Player Poulenc performed several actions after the Motive Order for repayment was issued, and therefore did not perform the required action 'as soon as possible' as stated in Rule 319/0.

Ruling:

true

Plaintiff's Analysis:

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

Motion 22/0: states "I create a new bank motion requiring the bank to reclaim 30 out of the current 60 outstanding points from Poulenc. This will reduce Poulenc's debt by 30".

Rule 101/0 "Follow the rules" states "All game entities must always abide by the Rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in efffect. This Rule takes precedence over all other rules".

Rule 105: "Agents" states in part "An Agent is an entity capable of action".

Rule 115/0: "Execution of orders" states "An Agent who is the recipient of an Order must execute he Order in a timely fashion".

Rule 305: "Required Actions" states (in part) "an outstanding 'as soon as possible' actions must be performed before any other actions may be performed by that Agent." and "The time allowed for actions required to be performed 'within a reasonable amount of time' varies depending on what is reasonable for the action, but in no case is it longer than one week".

Rule 317 - "The bank" states in part "The bank is an agent".

Rule 318 "The Banker" states in part "It is the responsibility of the Banker to post actions to the public forum for the Bank. There are some decisions that must be made and some actions that must be performed by the bank. This office acts as the decision-making and action-performing part of the bank. If a CFJ finds that the banker has not allowed the Bank to preform its required duties within a reasonable length of time e is expelled from the office and fined 50 points".

Although the RFJ did not specify which motive order was not followed by Poulenc, a reading of motions current at the time the RFJ was made shows Motion 22 is the only motion which discusses a debt Poulenc owes to the Bank.

This motion puts the onus for action on the Bank, not on the player Poulenc. But According to rule 318, responsibility for actions taken by the bank rests with the Banker, and specifies actions must be taken with "a reasonable length of time".

Rule 305 states "a resonable length of time" can be no more than 1 nweek.

As the Banker (who is also player Poulenc) did not reclaim 30 points from the player Poulenc within 1 nweek of the passage of Motion 22/0, the Banker has not allowed the Bank to perform it's required duties within a reasonable length of time, and e is expelled from office and fined 50 points.

Statement:

M22, by Jeff Schroeder, text quoted below, did not result in a Motive order requiring Poulenc to transfer 30 points to the bank, because its wording and type (Bank Motion) were directed at the Bank, not at Poulenc.

Ruling:

true

Plaintiff's Analysis:

Text of M22:
"I create a new Bank Motion requiring the bank to reclaim 30 out of the current 60 outstanding points from Poulenc. This will reduce Poulenc's debt by 30."

Ordering the Bank to reclaim 30 points from Poulenc is not the same as ordering Poulenc to transfer 30 points to the Bank. And a Bank motion is not the same as a Motion for Repayment--they have different definitons under the rules.

The Judge is encouraged to refer to R317/2 "The Bank" and R319/0 "Points Owed".

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

I looked over the rules for about an hour and a half and what it comes down to is this:
Taken in context, the motion could be jeff, as a player, submitting a Bank Motion, directing the Bank to make a Motion for Repayment or, it could be Jeff, acting in his capacity as the tax collector, submitting a motion for repayment on behalf of the bank. Because of the ambivalent nature of the motion, I feel we are forced to let the literarity of the motion preside, meaning that Jeff actually submitted a Bank Motion (requiring the Bank to make a Motion for Repayment).

It would be more convenient the other way, but I feel this is right.

Statement:

R226/0 does not prohibit voting in private fora.

Ruling:

true

Plaintiff's Analysis:

Here's the text of R226/0:

"A Player may vote privately if e so desires by notifying the Administrator. Votes cast privately shall not be revealed until voting ends."

1. It seems to me that the second sentence implicitly apples to the Admin, and not anyone else.

2. The second instance of "privately" in the Rule could be read in the usual, rather than the technical, in-game sense.

3. There is clearly no prohibition against posting one's own votes to a public forum---and it seems to happen quite a lot. That said, it can be noted that there is no blanket prohibition on revealing votes prior to the close of voting.

4. For non-revelation to be possible, someone must lack the unrevealed knowledge. For instance, it would be impossible for me to avoid revealing to anyone on the list that 1 + 1 = 2, because everyone already knows that. Similarly, when someone votes to the discussion list, there is afterward no one on the list to whom their votes could yet be revealed. So, if it is granted that the sending of votes to the discussion list is not covered by the non-revelation clause in R226/0, then there could not possibly be any violation of the Rule in that case. I contend that voting to the discussion list does not constitute vote revelation, as conveying one's votes in private fora---of which the discussion list clearly is one---is explicitly allowed by the first sentence of R226/0. So, either R226 is self-contradictory, or poorly written. I am inclined to go with the latter.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

R226/0: "A Player may vote privately if e so desires by notifying the Administrator. Votes cast privately shall not be revealed until voting ends."

Postings in private fora are not officially part of the game. However, the action of notifying the Administrator (if e is member of the private forum) is official, as its means are not further specified in R226/0. Concerning the term of "revealing", I agree with Joel s interpretation: It is impossible to reveal a condition known a priori. A priori in this case means, that the members of the forum have the knowledge in the moment the votes are cast, not by any information afterwards.

[[A moment in PbeM-games is hard to grasp, in our case the forum time stamp should suffice]]

Thus, any later notification of ones votes, either by the Administrator or by the player emself, is forbidden by the rule in question. In addition, the player may even decide to adjust eir votes (if allowed by the Rules) in another official notification, which may be adressed to the Administrator only. Notification of other players is non-official and non-binding.

[[This kind of misinformation is of course strongly discouraged and shall serve only for demonstration purposes here.]]

Statement:

If a rule states certain conditions under which points should be transfered, and those conditions are met, then those points should be transfered without any action by the current owner of the points.

Ruling:

false

Plaintiff's Analysis:

-----Rule 121/3 : Score is quoted here:
Associated with each agent is a scalar quantity known as eir score. An agent's score is a representation of the number of point objects owned by em.

The owner of one or more points may transfer any or all points in eir posession to another legal owner by posting to the public forum.

If the rules call for the Administrator to credit a player with a certain number of points then e shall order the transfer of those points from the Bank to that player.

If the rules call for the Administrator to debit a player a certain number of points then e shall order that player to transfer the required points to the Bank.
-----

This rule does not explicitly state that this is the only way to transfer points, and I want a definitive ruling.

A TRUE ruling on this would mean that e.g. points exchanged for similarity challenges would be transfered without each player having to post a message indicating so.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

As a blanket statement, this is very difficult to judge true. There are rules which transfer a player's points automatically, such as R351, Automatic Debt Payment. There are also rules which instead create a debt for the required amount or which require the Administrator to make the transfer. However, with the exception of R351, the the transfer of a player's points is not allowed without the consent of that player. The player of a contest would normally have to points eir entry to the Public Forum, and this post also counts as a point transfer. However, the simmiliarity challenge is an exception to this in which the joining posts are only sent to the contestmaster. It is still an entry, however, and the action of joining a simmilarity challenge still includes a point transfer. The Contestmaster should include with eir end-of-contest report a summary of the point transfers involved.

Statement:

A debt is payable to the debtor unless e transferred ownership of the debt.

Ruling:

false

Plaintiff's Analysis:

According to rules 319/0 (Points Owed) and 358/0 (Motion for Payment) [[these two rules are actually quite similar]], an Agent who owes Points is a debtor and the Agent to which e owes Points is a creditor. Rule 358/0 defines this pending Point transfer to be a debt.

Rule 347/0 defines that debts are Objects (proved true by RFJ 28), and that a "debt is always owed by its creator". Obviuosly, the debt is owed by the debtor, so e must be the creator of that debt.

As stated by Rule 347/0, Agents may create debts "in their own ownership". Since Objects may not be created except as allowed by the rules (R316/0, Objects), the only possible way for the debtor to be the creator of the debt is to have created it in eir own ownership. Therefore, as long as the debtor does not transfer ownership of the debt, e is the owner of that debt.

Rule 347/0 states that "The player to which a debt is payable is the same as the owner of that debt.", i.e. the debtor. Thus the debt is payable to the debtor.

[[Ownership of debts should probably be transferred to the creditor automatically, but it is not.]]

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

The main point of this RFJ relies on the line from R347/0 "the debt is always owned by its creator". What the RFJ did not quote was the first half of that sentence. In it's entirety the line is "Unless specified otherwise by the rules or a legislative, administrative, or judicial order the debt is always owed by its creator."

This part of R347/0 is allowing Agents to create Debts. As such the debt is first created so that the creator owes emself the points. The debt is then transferred as needed.

In R358/0 a debt is implicitly created. Who created these debts? It does not explicitly say who created the debt, but it does explicitly say who is the debtor and who is the creditor. The debt is created by the Rules, not by any Agent. (The Rules are not an Agent.) Therefore I believe that it is "specified otherwise by the rules" that the debt in this case is not owed by the creator.

The conclusion I come to is this:

When an Agent creates a debt by posting their intent to the Public Forum, the debt is payable to the debtor until the debtor transfers ownership of the debt.

When a debt is created by the Rules, a debtor and a creditor are specified and the debt is owed by the debtor to the creditor until the creditor transfers ownership of the debt (or the debt is paid).

So the statement is sometimes true, sometimes false. However, because it is not *always* true, my ruling is FALSE.

I make the following Judicial Orders:

1. The actions taken by Joerg on 15 Mar 2001 20:18:25 -0000 attempting to pay his debts to himself are invalid. As such he still owes the bank the 17 points that he owed to the bank at that time. (Plus or minus any legitimate variances since that time.)

2. Debts that are created by the Rules shall be payable by the specified debtor to the specified creditor. The creditor shall be the initial owner of the debt.

Statement:

The actions of a Player who holds an Office are actions that are committed by the Player and the Officer.

Ruling:

true

Plaintiff's Analysis:

>> But you made a Motion for Repayment for it that was active when voting
>> began.
> >Actually, I didn't. The Bank did... [snip]

The statements above seems to indicate that the Officer and the Player are different entities. I believe that they are the same entity that perform different tasks depending on the situation and the applicable Rules. The Player Joel states that the Player Poulenc made the Motion for Repayment, and Poulenc claims that e did not, the Bank did. I want a ruling on whether Poulenc made the Motion for Repayment in his role as an Officer or if the Banker as a separate entity made the Motion.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

Rule 108/0: "A Player holding an Office is an Officer. Officers have certain duties and privileges by virtue of their Offices..."

This makes it clear that "Officer" is a subset of "Player," specifically a Player who holds an Office as defined elsewhere in the Rules, and who holds "certain duties and privileges."

Examples:

Rule 318/0: "The Office of The Banker is an elective office. It is the responsibility of the Banker to post actions to the public forum for the Bank... It is up to the Banker to decide what actions the Bank will take."

Rule 321/0: "The Officer of Bean Counting (OBC) is an Elected Officer. The OBC is responsible for keeping track of the number of each Object currently owned by each Agent."

Rules 208/1, 310/0, and 324/0 all work in roughly the same way: defining an Office, and clarifying that duties are attached to an Office, which (per 108/0) is merely a set of special privileges and responsibilities assigned to a Player.

In general, actions of an Officer are in fact committed by the Player holding that office, and as such I rule TRUE.

There are a few specific exceptions (like Rule 317/2, where the Banker orders the Bank to submit a motion, but the motion is NOT actually submitted by the Banker), but all the exceptions of which I am aware are sufficiently clear in the Rules.

Statement:

The recusal of player Poulenc from the judgement on RFJ#40/0 and the assignement of RFJ#40/0 to player Blest Lax Monk Pal were invalid.

Ruling:

refused

Plaintiff's Analysis:

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

I refuste to hear this judgement on the grounds that it lacks a clear stateent. There is no indicaton as to why the plaintiff believes the action was invalid.

Statement:

Poulenc has not offered any Go alliances to The Kid, Dave, or M'cachessilnath.

Ruling:

true

Plaintiff's Analysis:

A Go player can make no more than one move per day (R365/0), and placing a stone is a move. Thus, Poulenc had already made a move when he attemped to make three other moves by offering an alliance to said players.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

I don't really think this needs much explanation, but just to reiterate: playing a stone and offering an alliance are distinct moves. Players can only make one move per day.

relevant rules:

Rule 368/0 : Go Moves
For each move, a Go player must do one of the following:
1. Place a Stone.
2. Offer an alliance to an enemy.
3. Declare war on an ally.
...

Rule 365/0 : Political Go
There exists a Contest called Political Go. The Go Consul is the Contestmaster. The first Go Consul is Joel.

The Go Board is empty at the start of Political Go. Players become Go players by making a Go move. Go players are unallied by default. Each Go player may make no more than one Go move per Game day, and may never place two Stones consecutively.

Statement:

Poulenc's placing of a stone on K5 on 30th March is invalid as he had already made a move on that day. The stone should be removed and Poulenc refunded his 4 points. The alliance that Benjamin offered to Jeff on 3rd April is invalid as he had already made a move on that day. The alliance should be canceled. (The re-offer of the alliance earlier today still stands.) The alliance that The Kid offered to various people on 3rd April is invalid as he had already made a move on that day. The alliance with Chess should be canceled

Ruling:

true

Plaintiff's Analysis:

This is to bring the game into alignment with RFJ#44.

Note to Judge:
You'll need to make a judicial order to remove the stone and cancel the alliences. However be careful that you don't cancel any alliance that is made between now and your verdict. I don't know what can happen with K5 in the mean time. I don't think anyone can place a stone there till your verdict as technically Poulencs stone is still there.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

Poulenc made a move by placing a stone on o4 at 30 Mar 2001 01:11:59 UTC and a second move by placing a stone on k3 (the message says k5, but the board shows the stone placed at k3, and since Poulenc never found something wrong about the actual placement, I think it should take precendence) on 30 Mar 05:37:39 UTC. Thus, he made two moves the same day, which is not allowed.

Benjamin has made two moves in the same message. It was not possible for him to make a second move, so he could not offer an alliance to Jeff Schroeder.

Concerning The Kid, he actually never made a valid offer for an alliance, since if he wants to offer an alliance, "e must name an enemy Go player to whom e is making the offer" (R368/0), which he did not do. But anyway, he already moved that day, so even if his offer were valid, he couldn't have made it.

Judicial Orders:

I order that Poulenc's stone is removed from k3 and that the Bank tranfers 4 points back to Poulenc.

I order that the alliance between The Kid and M'cachessilnath is cancelled.

Note: I do NOT make any orders concerning the alliance between Benjamin and Jeff Schroeder, since they became allied in a valid way in the meantime and the fact that they were not allied from April 3 to April 6 does not affect the game state in any way.

Statement:

No point objects and no debt objects currently exist.

Ruling:

pending

Plaintiff's Analysis:

Rule 347/0 refers to Debts as having "point-values". This indicates that a Debt object is composed of Point objects, albeit negative ones.

Rule 121/4 states that "An agent's score is a representation of the number of point objects owned by em."

Thus, an agent's Score includes any Debt objects that e owns.

Rule 122/0 states that "In the event of a Win being awarded, the Administrator shall reset all Scores to their initial value."

The initial values of Scores for this Nomic were that no Point objects or Debt objects existed. Thus, Joel should reset the game to that state, and every agent should have 0 Points and no Debts.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

Statement:

As the Rules cannot be scrutinised to determine the legality of PurpleBob's win by Pooker the win should be postponed until such a time that the Rules can be scrutinised, and the deadline on making RFJ's should be similarly extended.

Ruling:

pending

Plaintiff's Analysis:

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

Statement:

For the Dealer to use cards from the Deck to participate in a gard of Pooker or any other Card game is clearly against the spirit of the rules and against the spirit of the game and thus is illeagal.

Ruling:

pending

Plaintiff's Analysis:

Judge's Analysis and Orders: