Call For Criminal Judgement 141 - Fri, 22 Aug 1997 21:14:23 -0400
Subject: Whatever that thing is
Initiator: Rex Mundi
Judge: Karma (selected Aug 22, 1997, 21:20h EDT) (deadbeat)
2nd Judge: Balsamic Dragon (selected Sep 01, 1997, 16:21h EDT) (deadbeat)
3rd Judge: /dev/joe (selected Sep 09, 1997, 17:00h EDT)
Malenkai has committed a crime.Initiator's Comments:
On the 16th of August, at about 22:25, Malenkai wrote "I think the Zilruhti or whatever is a cool use of the CFCJ." Now, we don't know much about Zuriti'ili, but it seems likely that misspelling Zuriti'ili is itself Zuriti'ili.Suggested Penalty:
A deduction of 1 point, a fine of 1 A$, and a public apology of 1 or more lines.Judge's Comments:
We now know that the number of times Zuriti'ili has been committed must be a prime number at any given time. Thus, Zuriti'ili must have been committed at least *twice* before Zuriti'ili was added to the rules, and a third time when I was found guilty of doing something with my large trinkets. Since 2 and 3 are the only primes that differ by 1, and Zuriti'ili seems to have been committed only once at that time (the "third time" above), Zuriti'ili must have been exactly 3 times up to and including that time, and apparently still just 3 times at the time this CFCJ alleges Zuriti'ili was committed again.
After the incident in question in this CFJ, Zuriti'ili was committed again by myself, while two other Vulcans accused of committing Zuriti'ili at the same time have been found innocent, and one other case is still pending. If I were to judge this case true, there would have been 4 incidents of Zuriti'ili at the time of Vulcan's accused mass-Zuriti'ili, which violates the rule, so I must judge it false. (This reasoning seems to indicate that the other pending Zuriti'ili case must be judged true, but I am not the judge in that case.)
My suggested guideline is "Zuriti'ili may only be committed by the speaker if he publicly announces the number of times Zuriti'ili has been committed in the past and the date and time."
Call For Criminal Judgement 142 - Thu, 28 Aug 1997 19:37:04 -0400
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
Judge: Rex Mundi (selected Aug 28, 1997, 19:36h EDT)
/dev/joe has committed a Crime.Initiator's Comments:
The accused has committed the horrific act of Zuriti'ili. Zuriti'ili is described in the Rules as a heinous Crime, and it is said that is not even mentioned except in the most perverse circles. The mention of Zuriti'ili being discussed in circles suggests that it may be a group activity, at least in some cases. Thus, Zuriti'ili may be a heinous group activity.Suggested Penalty:
I can think of few nomic activities more heinous than blatant disrespect for one's fellow player's good judgment. The Vulcan party has committed this disrespect. Throughout their consolidation of power, there has been a not so thinly veiled tone that they feel they are doing this for the good of Ackanomic, and that they have an agenda of portions of the game that they wish to radically alter before they give up power.
This alone is no Crime; however, the desire to do it by absolute power is the blatant disrespect that Zuriti'ili must represent. Why did they not accomplish this agenda through a popular vote on proposals? Perhaps they feel such proposals would not have passed, yet somehow must be instituted for Acka's own good. I am insulted by this tone of this coup that they threaten to do things that Acka would do for itself if it had the good reasoning to figure it out for itself. It is utterly contemptful of one's fellow player, despicably paternalistic, and unforgivably pedagogical. It is one of the most heinous Crimes possible in nomic -- it transends the rules and cuts right to the heart of human interaction. It must be Zuriti'ili, the unspeakable sin.
Perhaps I am wrong and misread their motives. But if I am, why have they remained dictators for so long and not given up their power. The suggestion that they might "fix a few things then give it up" appalls me. I would actually prefer they just turn Acka into Imperial Nomic. I desperately hope this delay in returning the game to a more democratic state is not a sign of the truth of my misgivings, but I fear it is.
10 days in Gaol.Judge's Comments:
Well, as a member of the Evil Tyrannical Ruling Elite, he's bound to be guilty! However, the penalty will not be too harsh, since the ETRE never actually broke the rules, and I might well of done what they did, if I'd thought of it and been able to.Actual Penalty:
No one who is not a member of an organization can commit Zuriti'ili.
A fine of A$ 39, and a public apology of 3 or more lines.
Call For Criminal Judgement 143 - Thu, 28 Aug 1997 19:41:15 -0400
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
Judge: Balsamic Dragon (selected Aug 28, 1997, 19:41h EDT)
Appealed by two-star, Niccolo Flychuck, and Red Barn
Malenkai has committed a Crime.Initiator's Comments:
This is also an accusation of Zuriti'ili. The reasoning follows much the same lines as the previous CFCJ against /dev/joe. As a member to the guilty organization, the accused has committed Zuriti'ili.Suggested Penalty:
10 days in Gaol.Judge's Comments:
Having spent many long nights researching the qualities and implications of Zuriti'ili, I would like to share with Ackanomic what I have learned. First of all, there have only been two people previously accused of Zuriti'ili, and both have been found guilty. Obviously, however, Zuriti'ili must have occured at least three times in the history of Ackanomic, since it had occured at least once since the writing of the rule. Now Zuriti'ili is a crime, and crime had only existed for a finite period of time in Ackanomic, I went to the history books to see how "crime" had come about. You may imagine my surprise when I discovered these words "Malenkai introduced the concept of crime to Ackanomic" !!! Well, then the pieces all fell into place. Zuriti'ili is the ultimate crime. No real knowledge of crime would be possible without knowledge of Zuriti'ili. Therefore, this court finds Malenkai guilty of the very first instance of Zuriti'ili ever committed.Actual Penalty:
Note: In keeping with the traditions of previous Zuriti'ili related calls for criminal justice, I have completely ignored the reasoning of the Intiator.
Amendment to Rule: "The number of times Zuriti'ili has been committed, at any given point in time, is a prime number."
This Court finds that, for being guilty of Zuriti'ili, Malenkai must make a public apology of not less than 10 lines.two-star's Appeal Comments:
It is known that Zuriti'ili involves a prime number of entities, but surely, occurances of Zuriti'ili are not entities. Neither the initiator nor the judge has shown how a prime number of entities are involved in this case. Also, it is not known how often Zuriti'ili occured in the days of the ancients, but one must consider that it must have occured many times in order to gain its present notoriety. The ancients may not have had the same formal concept of crime that we have today, but they knew Zuriti'ili when they saw it. Therefore, due to the fact that the two previous occurances of Zuriti'ili happened at separate times, and Zuriti'ili must have occured more than 3 times, it is impossible that there could have been a prime total number of occurances of Zuriti'ili in both cases.Niccolo Flychuck's Appeal Comments:
This reasoning is absurd. It is based on on half truths and innuendo, conecpts which are unsuitable to the harf which we associate with Zuriti'ili. If fact, the whole idea that Zuiti'ili should be used in such a manner seems somewhat tasteless to me. The end does not justify all means, by no means does it justify those means, nor is the meaning of the justification clearly in the interest of the concept of crime as we understand it in Acka.Red Barn's Appeal Comments:
It is known that Zuriti'ili involves a prime number of entities, and surely, occurences of Zuriti'ili are entities. But the thing which everyone has overlooked is this: if there are at any point in time a prime number of occurrences of Zuriti'ili, then at the time the rule was created, Zuriti'ili must have occurred at least *twice* - for one is not a prime number. Furthermore, these two occurrences must have happened simultaneously. Thus we know that Zuriti'ili can indeed be performed concurrently, and the entire case must be re-tried.Supreme Court's Comments:
Though Zuriti'ili has been found to be connected to prime numbers in the past, the Court finds it difficult to believe that the number of times it has been committed could always remain a prime number. While not an impossible restriction, this would require a synchronicity of ever-growing complexity, and the Court's own research has yet to produce any evidence for such. (The Court believes that the original judge has probably been given number theory texts masquerading as ancient tomes, an event that occurs all too often.)
What the Court has discovered in its research, however, is a set of criteria that is surprisingly applicable to this particular instance. Upon examination, it is undeniable that what it describes has never happened at the time this CFCJ was lodged.
Therefore, the Court has no choice but to overturn the original verdict, with a penalty to the original judge of 1 point.
The new Zuriti'ili guideline, which contains the set of criteria referred to above, is given in its entirety immediately following, and continues to the end of this decision:
Zuriti'ili cannot be committed by the Speaker unless the following events have occurred:
1. Rule 303 is amended by replacing every occurrence of the word "positive" with the word "nonnegative".
2. Rule 0 is created with the title "Smart Bomb" and with the text "This rule takes precedence over every other rule. This rule takes precedence over any other rule that contains the text 'rule of the Imperium'. Any Rule numbered 411.1 is immediately repealed, and any and all rules numbered between 1 and 99 inclusive are repealed, after which this sentence is removed from this rule. If at any time there are no rules numbered between 1 and 99 inclusive, then at any time during the next four hours, the player whose Ackanomic name is breadbox, and who first joined Ackanomic on August 20 1996, is empowered to, as a public action, make any change whatsoever to the game state or the rules."
Call For Criminal Judgement 144 - Thu, 28 Aug 1997 19:49:59 -0400
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
Judge: two-star (selected Aug 28, 1997, 19:49h EDT) (failed to deliver verdict)
2nd Judge: Malenkai (assigned Sep 09, 1997, 16:10h EDT)
Vynd has committed a Crime.Initiator's Comments:
This is the third of these accusations of Zuriti'ili. Although he is probably the least culpable of the Vulcans, he chose to affliate himself with Vulcan to share in the Zuriti'ili *spit*, and so must suffer the same fate as the rest of the organization.Suggested Penalty:
10 days in Gaol.Judge's Comments:
We are fairly certain that CFCJ 137 was the third instance of this crime, thus CFCJ 142 coupled with this one constitutes the 5th occurrance (keeping with the simultaneous prime business. Hence there is no choice but to judge TRUE.Actual Penalty:
As for the penalty, it is this Judge's opinion that the action the defendent stands accused of was actually good for the game, or at least it livened it up a bit. Witness the level of play before, during, and after the alledged crime. I will leave it to those who called this a crime to offer lines of play that will liven up the game, then.
The Ackaphysicist has committed, or will commit, this crime at least once.
A DEDUCTION of 0 points from player X's score.
Call For Criminal Judgement 145 - Thu, 28 Aug 1997 19:52:30 -0400
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
Judge: Balsamic Dragon (selected Aug 28, 1997, 19:52h EDT)
ThinMan has committed a Crime.Initiator's Comments:
Whosoever alters the rules so that they do not constrain their actions in any effective manner has demonstrated a lack of respect for the Rules. At one time, I would have laughed at such an accusation directed toward ThinMan. Now I must cry at it. ThinMan's demonstrated lack of respect for both the Rules and the good sense of his fellow players, as demonstrated by his regretful participation in Vulcan's holding the game hostage, is irrefutable evidence of Zuriti'ili.Suggested Penalty:
This concludes my Phillipics. Let the Vulcans let the randomly selected Judges decide their fates, unless they feel their dictatorial good sense truly should supersede the beliefs of Acka's populace, and regrettably prove my accusations true.
10 days in Gaol.Judge's Comments:
I find that Guy Fawkes has, sadly, been overcome with emotion following the rise to power of the tyranical overlords. Though I can understand his anguish, I cannot, in good conscience, find his accusation to be true. I have faith that, once this matter has taken its full course, Guy and Thinman can be reuinted to their previous state of cameraderie as Ackanomians. Far be it from this court to place the ugly fact of an accusation of Zuriti'ili in the way of peace and understanding.
Call For Criminal Judgement 146 - Sat 22 Nov 1997 14:20
Judge: mr cwm (selected 97-11-24 20:03) (declined)
2nd Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected 97-11-27 11:59) (declined)
3rd Judge: Malenkai (selected 97-11-29 00:24)
Karma has committed a Crime.Initiator's Comments:
In a public message dated after 11pm Acka Time on Thursday 20th November, Karma was put on vacation under Rule 257. In a public message dated before midday Acka Time on Saturday 20th November, Karma attempted to remove emself from Vacation. This e cannot do under Rule 255. Hence e attempted an impermissible action, and thus committed a Crime. Also, this implies that Karma is still on vacation.Suggested Penalty:
TRANSFERENCE of $20 to Slakko (to cover court cost).Judge's Comments:
A PUBLIC APOLOGY of 1 line precisely.
Rule 713, in part:Actual Penalty:> To perform an action specified by the Rules to be Illegal is a Crime. An > action specified by the Rules to be "impermissible" is,by contrast, > impossible. However, an attempt to commit such an action is a Crime
Rule 255, in part:> The one exception is that a player who has been on vacation less than 2 > days may not take themselves off vacation.
Karma was placed on vacation by rule 257 on 11/20, at 23:36.
Karma wrote, on 11/22, at 11:22:> if thr [sic] rules say i must, then i remove myself from vacation > as of...... now!
If this message, is in fact, an attempt to remove himself from vacation, then Karma did indeed commit a crime. We must look at whether this is an attempt to remove himself from vacation.
The rules do not say anyone "must" take themselves on vacation; indeed they prohibit such in the situation in question. However, inflection is impossible in this medium, and I believe (and thus judge) the "if" clause to be more rhetorical than conditional in the attempted public action quoted above, thus I believe Karma *attempted* the public action of vacation removal.
(Normally I would see it the other way, but CFJ 447 and CFJ 470 have [unfortunately] established a bit of custom. Moreover, no one questioned at the time that it was an unambiguous attempt to remove himself from vacation. This is much to the chagrin of the officers, who have to deal with this ambiguous **** all the time :-))
Rule 373 speaks to this situation somewhat [quoted in part]:> The rules may specify that certain possible courses of play are > public actions. Any active player may attempt any public action > available to him or her simply by sending a public message specifying > the action to be taken. However, if any information that is necessary > to specify the action fully and unambiguously is left out of that > message, then the attempt fails.
I'm not sure if the judges of CFJ 447 and 470 considered this, (but the Supreme Court certainly should in the case of CFJ 471 :-)). It would appear that this rule may countermand the custom mentioned above, and apparently be used in other situations of this nature. Even if it does, however, rule 373 never says the attempt "never happens"; it says the attempt "fails" (and thus by implication the *attempt* still *occurs*). Rule 713 only requires the attempt *occur*, and since rule 373 will never prevent the attempt from occurring, no matter how it is interpreted, I can leave that to another CFJ, since the result is the same in this case. (In other words, had 3 days passed, would rule 373 have caused the attempt to fail? -- our game custom seems to say no, but rule 373 seems to say yes, unless the custom is giving a rather liberal rendering of "ambiguous"). I realise this is a bit tangential as it turns out, but I felt it had to be addressed in case rule 373 caused the attempt to never occur.
Thus I find that Karma attempted an impermissable action, and that whether rule 373 applies or not, the attempt still occurred, thus he comitted a Crime.
Having found the verdict, what is a suitable penalty? I find that this attempt by Karma was an honest mistake, and personally find calling CFCJs over honest mistakes a bit questionable, especially when there was no damage done. While I believe the rules of nomic should be followed to the T, who hasn't made an honest mistake, and to have to deal with being dinged for A$20 every time something like this happens seems a bit petty to me. The proper thing to do, in this case, is to point out the error, correct the game state, and move on.
CFCJs should be used for 3 things, IMO: harf, strategy, and remedial action against cheaters. I'm not sure they are appropriate for honest mistakes. Indeed, the initiator did not ask for much in terms of penalization, but clogging the justice system with this and having the defendant enshrined in the CFCJ archives is enough penalty; any further token penalization would be petty.
A DEDUCTION of 0 points from Karma's score.
Call For Criminal Judgement 147 - Tue 9 Dec 1997 20:28
Judge: The Gingham Wearer (selected 97-12-09 20:41)
Malenkai has committed a crime.Initiator's Reasoning:
Rule 1009 states: "It is a Crime to be a member of more than one Political Party at once." On Tuesday, Decmber 9, 1997, Malenkai publically posted: "I join SPAM, then denounce this action, then leave SPAM :-)" Malenkai is also a member of the organization Vulcan. Both SPAM and Vulcan own Big Tents, and are therefore political parties.Suggested Penalty:
suggested penalty: the REMOVAL of Malenkai from the organization Vulcan. [This may be completely ineffective, but appropriate to the circumstances.]Malenkai's Bronze Torch Reasoning:
Rule 215 states, in part:Judge's Comments:> All Judgements must be in accordance with all the rules in > effect at the time judgement was invoked, and with respect to > the game state at that time.
I note that the game state is just that, a collection of state variables, with no history recognized by the rules. At the time judgement was invoked, the game state had Malenkai was a member of exactly 1 organization with a Big Tent (Vulcan); at the time judgement was invoked, no crime was committed.
This has been out there for a while, this seemed like as good a time as any to explore it.
The statement under consideration is "Malenkai has committed a crime." and is not "Malenkai is committing a crime." Rule 211 states:Actual Penalty:
"The judge is required only to consider the actual statement provided and the game state."
Rule 215 states:
"All Judgements must be in accordance with all the rules in effect at the time judgement was invoked, and with respect to the game state at that time. When the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the statement in question, however, then the Judge shall consider currently existing game custom and the spirit of the game in reaching a decision.
The game state at the time the judgement was invoked was that Malenkai was not committing a crime, however this is irrelevant since that is not what is being judged. Therefore by rule 211 I should be considering only the statement. By rule 215 I should also me making the judgement in accordance with the rules, however, the rules are unclear as to whether the game state at the time of incident in question is to be considered so I should go with game custom and spirit of the game.
The thing I have to consider are therefore:
1. The statement, "Malenkai has committed a crime"
2. Game custom
3. Spirit of the game.
2. & 3. can be summarised to the same thing. Game custom and spirit of the game both suggest that if a player commits a crime then e should receive the appropriate punishment.
As for 1. Malenkai committed a crime by being a member of two political parties at once. According to my previous comment, I should therefore find him guilty.
I judge this TRUE and give a sentence of removal from SPAM and a public apology of three lines.
Call For Criminal Judgement 148 - Tue 6 Jan 1998 15:40
Subject: As interesting as CFCJ 146
Judge: The Gingham Wearer (declined) (selected 98-01-06 21:35)
2nd Judge: Fortunato (selected 98-01-07 22:33)
Appealed by Malenkai
CnH has commited a crime.Initiator's Comments:
As seen on the main mailing list, CnH went off vacation and then attempted to return from vacation in less than two days, which is forbidden by Rule 255.Suggested Penalty:
I recommend a sentance of 100 days in the Gaol, to remind him not to return over quickly, as well as a 100 point penalty and a 100 line apology. Evil doers must be punished harshly to teach them a lesson. (However if the judge is a feel-good wimpy liberal judge, perhaps a sentance of 2 days, the minimum vacation time, would also be appropriate.)Judge's Comments:
As a punishment, I sentence Calvin N Hobbes to 1 day in Gaol.Appealer's Comments:
The CFCJ should probably have been judged INVALID, if it ever existed at all. Failing that, FALSE is the correct verdict. See rule 710, section 3, and rule 251.Supreme Court's Comments:
If the verdict is upheld, however, see CFCJ 146 for a more appropriate penalty for an honest mistake.
I certainly do not understand how this new stand on crime is "harfy", and why players need to go to Gaol for making honest mistakes.
Rule 710, "Criminal Justice" states:> 3) Its "statement" shall be "X has committed a Crime", where X is > replaced with the name of a registered player.
This CFCJ's statement does not conform to this requirement, so the Court is returning a verdict of INVALID. This is admittedly somewhat pedantic, but Rule 710 is very precise in its requirements.
Penalty to the original judge: 1 point.
Call For Criminal Judgement 149 - Fri 23 Jan 1998 15:36
Subject: no one else gets the boot
Initiator: else..if (Henry Towsner)
Judge: Bill the pirate king (selected January 23, 1998, 3:35 p.m.)
Vynd has commited a crimeInitiator's Comments:
Vynd announced that he was ejecting The Gingham Wearer (then known as no one else) from Vulcan headquarters. However according to Rule 1, while an Evil Overlord of Ackanomic (retired) may eject a member of Vulcan from Vulcan headquarters, Vulcan must eject a non-member from the headquarters. The only reasonable interpretation of this is that it is an organizational action. Therefore Vynd is not permitted to eject any one not in Vulcan from Vulcan Headquarters.Suggested Penalty:
Since this was an honest mistake, I'd be inclined to recommend a lessened penalty, however I feel some token penalty is still appropriate. I suggest an apology of 5 lines.Judge's Comments:
After examining the evidence(or lack thereof) I must rule this cfcj FALSE.
I looked for something about this in the archives but I couldn't find anything saying that vynd was flinging TGW. Neither the accused nor the person allegedly ejected can remember exact details. I recall a cfj stating that though a player could change his name to a string found elsewhere in the rules it did not mean his name was reffered to by the rules so in my opinion the player known as no other player was not even really allowed into vulcan HQ so he could't
have been ejected by vynd or thin man or whoever supposedly did it.
Call For Criminal Judgement 150 - Mon 26 Jan 15:51
Subject: Lexical Equivalence
Judgement: (invalid CFCJ submission)
Rex Mundi has commited a crime.Initiator's Comments:
Being annoying is a crime by rule 721. By attempting to pay the organization standard harfer fee, instead of paying the amount of the standard harfer fee, he exploited lexical equivalence.Suggested Penalty:
Harsh! Two days in gaol, a 15 line apology, and a A$50 fine.