Call For Judgement 161 - Mon Apr 29 2:00pm CDT 1996
Initiator: Malenkai (Randy Hall)
Judge: ThinMan (John Bollinger)
The judge for CFJ 154 has not been properly selected by the rules, and thus the CFJ should be reassigned, or should a verdict have been reached by the time a verdict is reached on this CFJ, the verdict should be disregarded.Initiator's Comments:
I quote from R403: "Any call for judgement that is required on a rule or proposition that involves a member of a political party, cannot have as its judge a member of that political party. Furthermore, neither can the judge be a member of any other political party".Judge's Comments:
Clearly the referent in the CFJ's statement, Robert Sevin, is a member of the FOOZBALL party. Furthermore, chess piece face, the initiator is also a member of the FOOZBALL party.
You can either interpret "member of political party" in the first phrase as the referent or the initiator of the CFJ, it doesn't matter, in both cases they are members of the FOOZBALL party.
The selected judge, Mohammed, is a member of the (None Yet) party, "another political party". It is unlawful for Mohammed to be selected as the judge for this CFJ, by the text of R403 quoted above, if a suitable non-aligned candidate is available.
Clearly Malenkai, a member of no party, would have been a suitable candidate, and therefore R403 applies, and thus a judgement of TRUE is necessary.
Malenkai's reasoning, already included with the CFJ text, is unassailable. I have nothing to add to it.
Call For Judgement 162 - Mon Apr 29 2:00pm CDT 1996
Initiator: Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)
Judge: The Governor (Dan Marsh)
Appealed by: Calvin N Hobbes to the Supreme Court
Supreme Court's Judgement: TRUE
A player on vacation may return from vacation early, and therefore return to the game and no longer be considered on vacation.Initiator's Comments:
My reasoning is based mainly upon Permissibility of the Unprohibited and Game Custom. We've been doing this for a long time, and I don't see why it should stop now.Judge's Comments:
Rule 457 clearly states that a player will be on vacation the entire time of the vacation period.Appealer's Comments:
I realize that game custom may have interpreted this otherwise, but the rule seems quite clear to me, at least in this respect.
If you recall, my first public message was a draft proposal to eliminate "game custom" from Ackanomic. This may be another argument for doing so.
This ruling does not (yet) affect Calvin N Hobbes, since his vacation was not announced by the Registrar. It may be a subject of further judgment whether or not it should be.
I therefore invoke R569 and pay 5 points to call on the Supreme Court to return judgement. My case consists of saying that the judge of this CFJ made an incorrect (read "not in accord with the rules") ruling. I submit as material this message and refer the Court to the CFJ ruling of that Judge as stored in the Ackanomic files.Supreme Court's Comments:
You are correct in that it does not affect me, but it does affect others who are, have been and will be on vacation. Here is my case against the position you specified above.
The Governor, I find it amazing that as part of the reason for your judgement, you quote your own personal agenda. That you think game custom is bad has nothing to do with what the rules actually say, and your own personal preferences should have been shed when you accede to the position of judge and became an extension of the law.
Since CFJs are defined in the rules as part of game custom (R216) then you should have refused judgement if you did not believe in game custom. By ruling on it, you contradict yourself, and therefore put into doubt the entire conclusion of your CFJ ruling. But that is the least if the problems. Since R463 never says a player cannot return early, you are therefore in violation of R115 which allows the unprohibited, and also R101, which grants players the right use game custom.
By violating R115 and R101, you are also in violation of R215. By completely disregarding (for whatever reasons) game custom, you are in violation of R101, under the " in accordance with currently existing game custom" clause. By violating R115, R215 and R101, you violated the "players must always abide by the rules" clause of R101 (on more than one count).
I therefore invoke R569 and pay 5 points to call on the Supreme Court to return judgement.
My case consists of saying that the judge of this CFJ made an incorrect (read "not in accord with the rules") ruling. I submit as material this message and refer the Court to the CFJ ruling of that Judge as stored in the Ackanomic files.
The Court did not see, in reading the rule several times, where "Rule 457 clearly states that a player will be on vacation the entire time of the vacation period.", as stated by The Governor in his verdict. The Court recommends, in all verdicts, that rule text be referred to by direct quote of the relevent text, not in the manner referred to by the Governor.Penalty to original Judge:
The Court does quote the following language from R 457: "As a general guideline, in all cases other than those outlined above, the player is considered to be nonexistent during their vacation period. When the vacation period is over they will become a normal player again."
The key phrase is "As a general guideline". Had that phrase not been present, a case could possibly be made that the player is totally and completely non-existent while on vacation, and can perform no actions. But the phrase is there, and it must be considered.
The phrase, "As a general guideline" indicates that the referent guideline be generally followed (in this case, the player is non-existent), but in saying that it *generally* be followed, implicitly, by common usage, allows for a few *specific* deviations from the referent guideline.
What *specific* deviations might be allowed? The rules are silent on the matter. I now quote from R215: "When the rules are silent [...], then the Judge shall consider existing game custom and the spirit of the game"
The Court concurs with Robert Sevin and CnH that there is "existing game custom" that allows the *specific deviation* of a player on vacation to alter their vacation period. Not only that, this is in keeping with the "spirit of the game". What specific deviations might be allowed? Certainly those pertaining to the vacation period and and the logistics surrounding communicating its duration with the Registrar.
By altering their vacation period, a player can legally comply with R457, thus Robert Sevin's original statement is TRUE.
The Court does not consider The Governor's personal views on existing game custom relevent in this decision.
The Court did not consider "Permissability of the Unprohibited" in reaching this verdict, and has no comment on the matter.
By R569, the original judge must be fined 1 to 10 points. The Justices impose a 1 point penalty for The Governor.
Call For Judgement 163 - Tue Apr 30 11:08 CDT 1996
Initiator: Robin Hood
Judge: SnafuMoose (selected at 0906h CDT on 30 Apr 1996)
Robert Sevin has not yet been correctly penalised for his retraction of three proposals.Initiator's Comments:
Rule 423 say retracters gain a 1 point penalty. In normal english usage a penalty is never advantageous. Furthermore it is clear that the intent of the rule is to encourage players not to submit flawed proposals that would need withdrawing.Judge's Comments:
Since winning is desirable, for it to be gained as the result of a penalty is contrary to the meaning of the word. Rule 423 should be literally interpreted as meaning that Sevin's score should have been increased by 3 points.
1...While I agree with the concept of the arguments filed, common usage of the term "penalty" also indicates a decrease in score.
2...Since there is no other precedence that I am aware of in the rules or CFJ's, Robert Sevin's use of a penalty to win is consistent with the common use of penalty and thus stands.
3...Robert Sevin's score should not be changed.
4...If Robin Hood wishes to change the wording of R423 to agree with his interpretation of "penalty" he should make a proposal to that end (which I would wholeheartedly support)...
Call For Judgement 164 - Wed May 22 18:56 CDT 1996
Subject: The Speaker and the Voters
Initiator: Simon Marty Harriman
1st Judge: Bascule (selected at 1026h on 4 May 1996) (failed to respond)
2nd Judge: Techno (selected at 1329h on 20 May 1996)
Appealed by: /dev/joe to the Supreme Court
Supreme Court's Judgement: FALSE
Robert Sevin cannot vote on proposals according to rule 443/1Judge's Comments:
I have to rule this true as written. 443/1 says a player is either a voter or the speaker, but cannot be both at the same time.Appealer's Comments:
While I was trying to sort out the Judgements for the web pages, I realized that somebody should appeal this before the one week runs out on it.Supreme Court's Comments:
So, I'll do it. I appeal the ruling on 164 to the supreme court, on the basis that not only does the ruling go against the text of the rules (although R443 said the speaker was not a voter, the rules governing voting say that each *player*, not *voter*, gets one vote), but also because by the time the judgement was returned, Rule 443 had been repealed!
Robert Sevin is no longer the Speaker, and there is no longer a R443/1, to consider, nor has it been renumbered to something else. Therefore the original statement on which judgement was called is FALSE, based on the current facts.Penalty to original judge:
The only issue here is which set of facts must be considered, the ones in force at the time the statement was made, or the current facts. As the statement is in the present tense, the Court has no choice but to consider the facts at present. Additionally, neither Justice was serving at the time the statement was made, so it is impossible to determine precisely what those past facts were anyway, and in general the Court feels current facts must hold sway unless the original statement contains tense or other temporal language to call other facts into force.
By rule, the Court must assess a penalty of 1-10 points on the original judge; Techno is hereby assessed a penalty of 3 points.
Call For Judgement 165 - Sun May 5 15:49 CDT 1996
Subject: Forced Vacationing, or The Accidental Tourist
Judge: this is not a name (selected at 1029h on 4 May 1996)
No player may be placed on vacation except as explicitly allowed by the Rules.Initiator's Comments:
The renowned CFJ 113 establishes that if one means of performing an action is regulated by a rule, then every means is regulated. Putting players on vacation is, in fact, regulated by R457. Every means of putting players on vacation is therefore regulated, and players may not be put on vacation except as explicitly allowed by the applicable rules.Judge's Comments:
I find ThinMan's reasoning entirely valid.
Call For Judgement 166 - Mon May 13 13:34 CDT 1996
Initiator: this is not a name
Judge: Device (selected at 1042h CDT on 4 May 1996)
chess piece face's chewing of the gumball on 5/2/96 was illegal because the gumball had been chewed the previous Wednesday.Initiator's Comments:
According to Rule 495, the gumball can be chewed only "on alternate wednesdays and thursdays." I hold that this means two consecutive days, every two weeks. Thus chewing of the gumball must wait until 5/8 and 5/9/96.Judge's Comments:
The wording on rule 495 is:
"the passage of this proposal will create an acka-entity called the gumball which can be chewed only on alternate wednesdays and thursdays."
This means that either
1) The gumball may be chewed on Wednesday the first week, and Thursday the next, or
2) It may be chewed on Wednesday *and* Thursday every two weeks.
It cannot be determined which instance is to be taken.
Call For Judgement 167 - Sun May 5 15:33 CDT 1996
Subject: To be or not to be
Judge: Meme Complex (selected at 1048 CDT on 4 May 1812)
If a rule that creates an artifact or entity [e.g. ARN 355] is repealed, then the artifact or entity itself is not necessarily destroyed; as once it is created, it is not automatically "uncreated" by repealing the rule that created it.Initiator's Comments:
I submit no reasoning. I do submit that a verdict of FALSE is not obvious as it appears on the surface, at least to me, but a verdict of FALSE could clear up potential problems before they occur.Judge's Comments:
The status of an artifact's or entity's (i.e., an "object's") originating rule is incidental to the object's continued existence under the rules of the game unless it somehow explicitly depends for its maintenance on the original rule that has been repealed (for instance, a rule's instruction that some action related to the object be performed by some player), in which case it would fail as a matter of course, no longer being maintained by the repealed rule. If it is "autonomous," however, the original rule's repeal will have no effect upon the created object, therefore destroying the object as it is related to the game could only be accomplished by an interpretation of an existing rule that is unrepealed or by proper adoption of a new rule.
Of course this does not rule out the possibility that a rule that creates an object can be written in such a way as to specify that if the rule is repealed the object will be terminated. Further, a repeal of a rule can be written is such a way that it explicitly terminates the artifact or entity related to that rule. Repealing a rule in and of itself, however, does not destroy the object created by the rule any more than the death of a parent necessarily results in the death of their child, for example, or the death of a computer virus's originator ends the virus, which, evidently, it does not.
Moreover, a judgement rendered of FALSE might well be moot in the largest sense, for once created, an object that is truly autonomous might well exist even independently of the ruleset, even if there ceased to be a ruleset, if it is otherwise "viable." For instance, "the magic potato" or "gnome buddy" could easily enter into common parlance, or into other games, if they are charming enough to do so. And graphic representations of Ackanomia, such as they may come to be, could well persist even following a final conclusion of the game.
Call For Judgement 168 - Mon May 20 13:36 CDT 1996
Subject: Judgement Precedence
Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected at 1551h CDT on 5 May 1996)
Judgement: True (without comment)
Temporal order of verdict received, rather than numeric order of CFJs, shall hold sway when the verdicts of two or more CFJs are in conflict (i.e., the first verdict back establishes game custom upon return of the verdict, and holds precedence over a contradictory verdict of future CFJs, and immediately provides a body of game custom that deliberating judges must consider by R215).Initiator's Comments:
Clearly there is already game custom which indicates a verdict of TRUE is necessary. CFJ 158 coming back TRUE before CFJ 157 came back TRUE had significant effect on how the end of cycle crisis played itself out.
A verdict of TRUE shall simply strengthen and clarify existing game custom. A verdict of FALSE shall perhaps be paradoxical, or at least will cloud the game custom waters, but in no way have retroactive application to "preceeding" game custom, and "undo" the prior effects of CFJ 158 preceding CFJ 157.
I realize this has the potential to open a huge can of worms for the selected judge, especially if appeals and the custom of "grace period" are considered. Better to let loose these worms when things are stabilizing, rather than in the next crisis. I regret that I cannot include these concepts in the CFJ statement itself, as ARN 589 ties ones hands by allowing only one statement, and the one I have is already a big run-on.
Call For Judgement 169 -
Due to an error on the part of the Clerk of the Court, there was no CFJ 169.
Call For Judgement 170 - Tue May 28 11:14 CDT 1996
Initiator: this is not a name
Judge: Brinjal (selected at 1430h CDT on 24 May 1996)
Appealed by: mr cwm to the Supreme Court (Wed May 29 13:08 CDT 1996)
Supreme Court's Judgement: TRUE
Bascule receives 5 points and is silly because Proposal 728 passed.Initiator's Comments:
Proposal 728 reads:Judge's Comments:
>Proposal 728 - Thu May 09 02:12:03 EDT 1996 >That's just silly >Bascule (Matt Black) > >If an adopted proposal contains the phrase "cows eat grass", >then the proposer who proposed the change is said to be silly, >and shall score 5 points. > >[[ This rule does not apply to this rule. ]]According to rule 545 (quoted in part):
>Any text in doube square brackets [[e.g this]] is considered to be a >temporary note provided by the author, but meant to be excluded completly >from the text of the rule when it is officially published. This rule >expilcitly does not apply to this rule.So the statement that Rule 728 does not apply to itself is nonexistent. Therefore, since Proposal 728 was adopted at the time its Rule took effect, Bascule is silly and he must receive 5 points.
It seems clear that the disclaimer in double square brackets is a temporary note and should be ignored. This leaves the issue of whether applying this rule to the proposal which created it contravenes R106 which bars "retroactive application" of rules.Appealer's Comments:
The rules do not state whether any delay or grace period is applicable to the adoption of proposals, or whether the process of adoption is instantaneous. Either way though, the rule change cannot take effect until the proposal has been adopted. The one must always *follow* the other. A rule change can not be simultaneously in effect and in the process of being adopted.
It therefore seems that to apply R728 to the proposal which created it would fall foul of R106 in being retroactive, even if the amount of time involved may be almost infinitely small.
I wish to appeal the decision of CFJ 170 to the Supreme Court, and hereby acknowledge the 5 point penalty for doing so.Supreme Court's Comments:
Proposal 728 is as follows:
If an adopted proposal contains the phrase "cows eat grass", then the proposer who proposed the change is said to be silly, and shall score 5 points.
[[This rule does not apply to this rule.]]
The Rule created by Proposal 728 is as follows:
If an adopted proposal contains the phrase "cows eat grass", then the proposer who proposed the change is said to be silly, and shall score 5 points.
I agree with the judge, Brinjal, that the text in brackets is a temporary note and should be ignored. I must disagree on the point of retroactivity. I wish to emphasize the the Rule created by Proposal 728 does NOT say "When a proposal containing the phrase ... is adopted ... ." Rather, it reads "If an adopted proposal contains the phrase ... ." Proposal 728 is an adopted proposal, and it contains the specified phrase. Awarding 5 points would not be retroactive, as the points would be awarded in the present. Nor would it give the Rule retroactive effect. It is perfectly possible for rules to have effects in the present based on actions taken in the past. We could, for example, require each player who has changed their Ackanomic Name to change it back (present effect based on past actions). In contrast, we could not make it illegal for them to have changed their name in the first place (retroactive effect).
One may wish to compare this Rule to "The Blue Cross" which, similarly, will have effects in the present based on action in the past. (I don't think that Rule has been interpreted to mean "20 proposals after this one.")
Because the Rule created by Proposal 728 does not specify that the points are to be awarded upon adoption, but only that the points will be awarded to the proposers of certain adopted proposals, there is no retroactive effect in awarding the 5 points. The points can be awarded now, and, in fact, the Rule Set should be searched for other occurrences of the phrase "cows eat grass" so that the proposers of other adopted proposals containing that phrase can be awarded 5 points and be said to be silly as well.
The Court concurs with, and has nothing to add, to mr cwm's reasoning.Penalty to original judge:
The Court forgot to penalize Brinjal, as required by rule, and shall do so now, a penalty of 1 point.
Call For Judgement 171 - Sat May 25 18:12 CDT 1996
Judge: mr cwm (selected at 1400h CDT on 21 May 1996)
Mohammed is the Acting Speaker.Initiator's Comments:
It comes down to vacation interpretation again. The facts may be different when the CFJ is filed from the time it is adjudicated. That is the Judge's problem :) Hopefully it will be irrelevant.Judge's Comments:
The Rule "Speaker" directs that the Clerk of the Court be Acting Speaker for the duration of the Speaker's vacation, if the Speaker does not select appoint volunteer. As no volunteer has been appointed, and Mohammed is Clerk of the Court, and the Speaker, Robert Sevin, is on vacation in accordance with the Rule "Vacationing," I must find that Mohammed is Acting Speaker.
Note that the Rule "Vacationing" only requires that a player make a public request that he desires to be on vacation, and that the player's only legal action during vacation is to remove himself from vacation, by making a public declaration that he is doing so. The following message from Robert Sevin is evidence that he has made a public request to be on vacation. The fact that his announced return date has passed is irrelevant, as the only method of returning from vacation is a public declaration that he is back, and Robert Sevin has not yet made such a declaration.
> From email@example.com Wed May 15 17:23:19 1996 > Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org > Precedence: bulk > Message-Id: <email@example.com> > X-Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org > X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 16:09:41 -0500 > To: email@example.com > From: Mitchell Harding <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Subject: Ackanomic: Official > > I am hereby putting myself on vacation until Friday, May 17, 1996 at 5pm > CDT. I will get the web page and my other affairs caught up in that time... > I apologize for any inconvenience I have caused. > > Robert Sevin
Call For Judgement 172 - Fri May 24 14:33 CDT 1996
Subject: No Creativity
Judge: De'ghew (selected at 1410h CDT on 24 May 1996)
Judgement: (retracted by Malenkai on 24 May 1996)
this is not a name's attempt to declare the Governor's points for himself by R115 is illegal.Initiator's Comments:
Acquisition of points is clearly a regulated activity. R115 only applies to unregulated activities. I request the Judge read CFJ 113. Been here, done that. Upon a verdict of TRUE, the scorekeeper should disregard this is not a name's attempt.
Call For Judgement 173 - Mon Jun 3 11:23 CDT 1996
Subject: Blue Cross
Judge: mr cwm (selected at 2215h on 30 May 1996)
In rule 549, the phrase "Any player who has more than 20 of his proposals become rules" only includes proposals to create new rules, and not proposals to amend, repeal, or transmute rules, proposals which make multiple changes to the rules, or proposals which do not change the rule set.Initiator's comments:
A proposal to repeal a rule does not "become" a rule, it just removes a rule from the rule set. Similarly, a proposal to transmute or amend a rule only changes an existing rule. A proposal which creates a rule and also repeals, amend, or transmutes one or more rules, or which creates more than one new rule, also doesn't "become" a rule -- part of the proposal becomes a rule, but the proposal as a whole does not. And any proposal which doesn't change the rule set at all, such as a resolution, clearly does not become a rule.Judge's Comments:
If my interpretation is correct, then no player is yet eligible to receive a Blue Cross by the method described in the first paragraph of rule 549, at the time this CFJ is being submitted (although Calvin N Hobbes is close; the rule says "more than 20" which means "21 or more", and he is at 20 now).
I note that the later part of the rule which deals with stripes is worded differently, such that it applies to all passed proposals: "Then for every additional 10 proposals that the player makes which pass, he will be awarded a silver stripe."
Reasoning: The reasoning of /dev/joe is sound. The many references to "rule changes" in the rule set point to a distinction between a Rule, and the "rule change" created by a proposal, which is not necessarily a Rule.
Call For Judgement 174 -
Subject: Right-Handed Grapefruit
Judge: Brinjal (selected at 1435h on 30 May 1996)
Robert Sevin does not hold the Right-Handed Grapefruit.Initiator's Comments:
Rule 666/2 states that "The winner is declared winner of the cycle, and given a Right-Handed Grapefruit, should such an entity be defined by the Rules."Judge's Comments:
I content that an entity called the Right-Handed grapefruit is not defined by the rules. R666/2 only governs the dispensing of Right-Handed Grapefruit. It does not create an ackanomic entity with that name, nor does it define it.
It does seem rather mean-spirited to deprive Robert Sevin of his hard-won Grapefruit. However, I can only concur with the facts as described by Snowgod. The beastly Rule 666 requires Right-Handed Grapefruit to be defined by the rules, which it is not. I would add that by the same logic the Chartreuse Goose Eggs have not been given out either.
Call For Judgement 175 - Mon Jun 3 11:14 CDT 1996
Subject: I Win
Initiator: The Great Old One
Judge: mr cwm (selected at 1939h on 2 June 1996)
Appealed by: The Great Old One to the Supreme Court
Supreme Court's Judgement: False
The game is no longer playable because of Rule 663. This rule gives anyone the power to proclaim a proposal a resolution. Therefore, no proposals could become Rules or change rules, and the game in a stalemate.Judge's Comments:
Reasoning: Even if a player has the power to declare proposals to be resolutions (a point I am absolutely not judging here), there is no requirement that any number or fraction of proposals become Rules or Rule Changes for the game to be playable. There are many ways one can imagine no more proposals becoming Rules or Rule Changes: our creative juices could dry up and never cause another proposal to be made, each proposal could be withdrawn before coming to a vote, or we could defeat each proposal. In each case the game would still continue. There is nothing in the rule set to support the claim that the game would no longer be playable if each proposal failed to become a Rule or a Rule Change because it was a resolution.Appealer's Comments:
I disagree with your logic that Nomic can be played without rule changes. The entire base for Nomic is the changing and creating of the Rules. Without this ability, it is no longer a game; the point of it's existence is lost.Supreme Court's Comments:
Players can no longer score points from their proposals.
Rule 207 states that:
"When a proposed rule change is adopted, those players who voted against it receive 5 points each. A player whose rule change is adopted also receives 10 points."
Since resolutions cannot actually change the rules, players cannot score any points from them. Entities that add points such as The Magic Potato only add points when a Proposal is passed. Points gained by properties of the proposal, such as in Rule 379, also affect Proposals and not Resolutions.
So I submit that the Rules may no longer be changed or added to, as every Proposal may be made into a Resolution. And, because Resolutions are NOT Proposals, they cannot modify scores as Proposals do. Therefore, the game can no longer continue or even be called a game.
I submit for clarity that a Resolution is NOT a Proposal, the following:
Rule 105 - Proposals must be written down
"Any proposed rule change must be written down."
Rule 106 - When Proposals can take effect
"A rule change will take effect..."
Rule 663 - Resolutions
"A resolution may not change, add, or delete any rules."
The Court agrees with mr cwm's initial reasoning. Additionally, The Court also points out that just because every proposal *may* be made into a resolution, it has not been demonstrated by The Great Old One that a state in the game exists that guarantees or *requires* that this will occur. Ie, if I gave you the power to paint all houses orange, this does not mean or guarantee that all houses will be painted orange.Penalty to appealer:
Thus all the reasoning that follows the false premise is meaningless and will not be commented on by the Court, thus The Great Old One has not added to his position, and mr cwm's logic is sufficient.
The only other potential snag is R112, which requires that rule changes are always permissible. The Court sees no evidence that rule changes are impermissible at this point.
By R569, the Court fines The Great Old One 20 points for "friviously bothering the Judges". This is in addition to the 5 points for the appeal.