Call For Judgement 176 - Tue, 04 Jun 1996 22:07 +0300
Initiator: The Great Old One
1st Judge: SnafuMoose (selected at 1951h on 2 June 1996)
2nd Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected at 2005h on 3 June 1996)
Rule 663 allows any proposal to become a resolution. This rule also states that a resolution cannot change or create a rule, but the effects of the resolution shall be applied. This is, in my judgement (and of others) a paradox.1st Judge's Comments:
Comment: Last time I tried to make a judgement on one of these things I got in trouble :-)2nd Judge's Comments:
...Actually, I just can't decide on this one. So nyah... next judge........
>>Resolutions >>The Governor (Dan Marsh) >> >>A player may declare that a proposal is a resolution. A resolution may not >>change, add, or delete any rules. If a resolution is adopted, the effect >>described in the resolution shall occur, and the resolution shall not be >>added to the rule set.The Great Old One's first statement by itself is already false.
While the rule states that a player may declare that a proposal is a resolution. It does specify that this actually has any effect on the proposal. Since proposals are Protected (R660) they cannot be affected in any way that is not defined by the rules (R592). This rule does state that a player's declaration has any effect on the state of the proposal. It may imply something about the player's beliefs concerning the state of a given proposal, however, players beliefs are defined in Ackanomic and have no power to change any Ackanomic entities, let alone Protected ones. Further more, while I have not been asked to Judge on that specific point, the rule states that _A_ player, may declare _A_ proposal to be a resolution, the Great Old One, has attempted to declare something like 12 proposals. Has there been a CFJ, or a CFCJ on that one. Perhaps there should be. I cannot sign this Judgement without adding a personal comment. I feel that the parenthesized phrase (and of others) is of very bad taste. Recruiting anonymous 'others' in order to gain a Judge's favors, or to exert some sort of bogus peer pressure is very un-nomic. I find it regrettable that a respected member of the Underworld, and a would Church Founder, should resort to such rhetorics.
Call For Judgement 177 - Tue, 4 Jun 1996 13:31 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Constitutional Conventions
Initiator: The Great Old One
Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected at 1955h CDT on 2 June 1996)
This rule states that Proposals, in Rule 629, are unlike Proposals mentioned in any other rule. (b)(2) says that Proposals to hold a CC are to be distributed as the Rules specify. But since the Proposals in this Rule are unlike any other, there are no rules that specify how Proposals to hold a CC are to be distributed, therefore there can never be a COnstitutional COnvention.Judge's Comments:
from R629(a) A proposal to hold a Constitutional Convention is not a "proposal" as the word is used in any other rule. (b) (1) Any player may make a proposal to hold a Constitutional Convention. (2) A proposal to hold a Constitutional Convention shall be made and distributed in the manner that the rules specify that proposals are to be made and distributed. (c) (1) If a proposal is made to hold a Constitutional Convention, the Tabulator shall accept votes on the proposal to hold a Constitutional Convention for the length of the Official Voting Period.Reasoning
section (a) states clearly that a proposal to hold a Constitutional Convention is not a "proposal" as the word is used in any other rule. Fine, so far no argument.
The Great Old One claims that there are no rules that state how to distribute such proposals. (b)2 states that a proposal to hold a Constitutional Convention (which is unlike other proposals, and therefore follows its own rules) shall be made and distributed and the manner that the rules specify that proposals ( here it says nothing about a proposal to hold a Constitutional Convention, therefore we must assume that the reference is to the standard kind of proposals. While the rule explicitly states the a proposal for a Constitutional Conventions is unlike proposals as mentioned in the other rules, it does prohibit the use or the word proposal on its own to refer to proposal of the regular kind. In fact, every references that does not depend on other rules uses the entire combination ' proposal ...Constitutional Convention' , there fore we can only conclude that in the one place where this combination is not used, the reference can only be made to proposal of the normal kind - and, proposals of the normal kind have a well-defined method of distribution, and the method of distribution of proposals to hold a Constitutional Convention is defined as identical to that former method, the Great Old One's argument falls apart at the seams)
I Judge this to be FALSE
Call For Judgement 178 - Tue, 11 Jun 1996 20:20:41 -0400
Judge: Techno (selected at 2002h CDT on 3 June 1996)
Judgement: True at Tue, 4 Jun 1996 11:51 CDT
Appealed by: Thinman
Supreme Court's Judgement: False
It is permissible for me to declare that P835 and P837-848 will no longer create resolutions.Initiator's Comments:
There is no text in the ruleset defining the process of changing a proposal which creates a resolution into a proposal which creates a rule, therefore it is an unregulated act and my actions are permissible in accordance with R115.
This judgement is in error, and must be overturned. I hereby appeal it to the Supreme Court and take the point reduction myself.Supreme Court's Comments:
Techno did not take into account the fact that R 660 makes proposals protected, and that R 592 prohibits the manipulation of a protected entity except as allowed by the rules. R 115 does not enter the picture -- this is exactly the purpose of protection.
Justice Bascule's Reasoning:Penalty to original judge:
Snowgod:> There is no text in the ruleset defining the process of changing > a proposal which creates a resolution into a proposal which creates a > rule, therefore it is an unregulated act and my actions are permissable > in accordance with R115.Rule 115 explicitly defers to other rules.
(From R115:Whatever is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated.)
So the issue is: Is the process of changing resolutions into proposals regulated?
Snowgod is correct in saying that no rule explicitly prohibits changing resolutions into proposals. However:>From R660: ...proposals...are protected entities. >From R592: A protected entity may not be created, destroyed, or >manipulated except in accordance with the Rules.So proposals may not be created except in accordance with the rules.
As the creation of proposals is protected (660,592), I believe that the creation of proposals is regulated. Hence I conclude that the process of changing resolutions into proposals is regulated, and that it is not permitted (592).
Justice Malenkai's Reasoning:
CFJ 181 eliminates ThinMan's Protection argument. It is game custom that must be honored in the absence of rules governing the situation. CFJ 168 requires that this custom be considered immediately upon it being received. But are there any rules which govern the situation? There are, but they are the same ones debated by CFJ 181. As I agree with CFJ 181, I would reach the same conclusion upon attempting to apply those rules to this situation.
Therefore snowgod's hypothetical attempted action does not run afoul of Protection.
But this judgement is not directly about Protection, and its effects; it is about snowgod's original statement, which snowgod is claiming is legal by R115.
I must turn to the time tested, bulwark of Acka, CFJ 113. I quote the relevant language:> This essentially comes down to an interpretation of Rule 115. I claim > that the correct interpretation, the one that we all share, is the > following: You can do anything you want if the rules have nothing > to say on the issue. For example, I could say that I am officially the > Big Herring, because the rules are completely silent on this issue. > However, I could not declare that instead of using ordinal numbers in > base 10, we would be using ordinal numbers in base 3. This is illegal > because while the rules do not expressly forbid this specific action, > there is a rule concerning the numbering of proposals (Rule 642) and > thus I cannot arbitrarily adjust this, even though the said rule does > not discuss this issue specifically.Both proposals and resolutions (a form of proposal), are regulated by the rules. Therefore, by the game custom established by CFJ 113, snowgod may not invoke R115 to apply the arbitrary action he attempts on the specified proposals.
Thus I must find a verdict of FALSE.
I submit that CFJ 113 is a crutch, with improper scope, but CFJ 113 is not on trial here. By law (R101, R215, and R216), it is a crutch that must be leaned on.
The Justices are in disagreement as to the validity of CFJ 181, but that is not on trial here. Neither Justice, by rule, may appeal CFJ 181. The Justices are in agreement that the scope of CFJ 113 is inappropriate, but are in disagreement as to whether it is applicable. Bascule's argument hinges on the ability for R115 (Immutable), to defer its authority to a Mutable rule. R210 regulates precedence, but it is unclear to Malenkai whether or not this "cross" precedence deferral is "explicit", or is legal. The Justices continue to debate this issue after the verdict, but as it will not affect this verdict, have decided to post with unreconciled reasoning.
1 point penalty for Techno.
Call For Judgement 179 - Wed, 5 Jun 1996 14:22 EDT
Subject: Player Resolve
Judge: Wayne (selected at 1219h CDT on 4 June 1996)
Rule 663 does not allow any player to turn any proposal into a resolution.Initiator's Comments:
"Any player can declare that they have 3 eyes. Not all declarations are true. Rule 663 does nothing." - Robin Hood While 663 permits players to declare that proposals are resolutions, it does not actually turn those proposals into resolutions.Judge's Comments:
"A player may declare that a proposal is a resolution. A resolution may not change, add, or delete any rules. If a resolution is adopted, the effect described in the resolution shall occur, and the resolution shall not be added to the rule set."
declare - "to make known formally or explicitly"
R660 - "Proposals are Protected Entities"
R592 - "Protected Entities cannot by altered except as allowed by the Rules"
R663 - "A player may declare that a proposal is a resolution."
It is clear that any player may declare that a proposal is a resolution. The only question is whether the act of declaring that a proposal is a resolution actually makes the proposal a resolution.
I've searched the RuleSet for other examples of "Declare". Here is what I have found"
"...the player who called for judgement is declared the winner of the game...."
"...that player will be declared the Winner of the Cycle..."
In both examples, a player is declared the winner of the game/cycle.> > "Any player can declare that they have 3 eyes. Not all declarations are > > true. Rule 663 does nothing." - Robin HoodDoes this mean that a player declared a winner is not actually a winner? I think not. Any player can declare anything that they want to. And unless it is regulated by some other rule, then it is allowed. If I declare that I have three eyes, then I shall have three eyes, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GAME.
We have a Rule that says the Earth is Flat. It does not matter whether this is true or not, we have passed a rule. Truth does not affect anything.
Since Proposals are Protected Entities, normally we could not legally declare them resolutions and transmute them. But we have a Rule that allows us to declare them Resolutions. Therefore t shall be allowed.
Call For Judgement 180 -
Subject: Prosthetic Forehead Power
Judge: Robin Hood (selected at 1229h CDT on 4 June 1996)
Prosthetic Foreheads may not grant any player any power, ability, or right not already allowed by rule 115.Initiator's Comments:
/dev/joe based his recent prosthetic-forehead-related action on the language of the new rule 818: "There is an endless supply and an endless variety of Prosthetic Foreheads." He therefore claimed to buy a prosthetic forehead that allowed him to perform certain otherwise prohibited game actions, such as repealing a rule without a vote and changing his score arbitrarily.Judge's Comments:
However, "endless variety" is by no means the same as "every variety imaginable." Indeed, "endless variety" could simply mean infinitely many sizes, colors, and shapes. There might be some very (_very_) large prosthetic foreheads out there, but the rules do not guarantee that there be any that grant special game-related abilities.
Therefore, only under the auspices of R115 could /dev/joe or anyone else buy a prosthetic forehead that grants any particular power, ability, or right.
I'm satisfied with Thinman's reasoning.
In addition if /dev/joe/ were right then prosthetic foreheads would conflict with rule 108 since by his reasoning an endless variety is not endless unless there exist foreheads that transmute immutables, so 108 would immediately annul the rule rendering him wrong. Judging false would therefore make the statement true
Call For Judgement 181 - Tue, 4 Jun 1996 13:09 CDT
Subject: Protection Loophole
Judge: Mohammed (selected at 1306h CDT on 4 June 1996)
Rule 115 does not allow any player to modify protected entities by any means other than those provided for in other rules.Initiator's Comments:
This seems almost (almost) trivial, but it is a companion to my other CFJ, and covers the possibility of a player creating a device under the auspices of R115 which would then perform or allow him to perform the actions he desires.Judge's Comments:
Rule 592 states: "A protected entity may not be created, destroyed, or manipulated except in accordance with the Rules." I think that with this the case is clear, and nothing else need be said.
Accordance means "agreement, conformity" according to my American Heritage, 3rd edition. At first my instinct was that no conformity is involved in taking an action under R115, but it is my belief now that, since R115 does not extend to all actions indiscriminately, there is a measure of "accordance" required there. So an action taken under R115 is taken in accordance with "the Rules" as stated by 592, and is, therefore, legal.
Ironic that I should get this judgement. I wrote the buggy rule, R592, and have known about the bug for a little while but was waiting for an opportunity to exploit it. The good news is that it can't really be exploited. Almost all the actions it allows are "regulated" as per Judgement 113. (I don't like J113. But it may save the game here.) Redundant protection. Phew.
Personally, I don't like hiding in the skirts of old judgements. I think this calls for a rule change of some sort.
Call For Judgement 182 - Thu, 6 Jun 1996 13:03 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: I Win, take two
Judge: Bascule (selected at 1322h CDT on 4 June 1996)
/dev/joe's actions of buying and wearing a Prosthetic Forehead on the morning of June 4 were legal, thus he has won the game.Judge's Comments:
/dev/joe's actions of buying and wearing a Prosthetic Forehead were certainly legal, however this does not mean he has won the game.
[ A slightly more specific CFJ might have read:
The Prosthetic Forehead that /dev/joe bought possessed the properties ascribed to it by /dev/joe in accordance with rule 818, and hence he has won the game. ]
The existence of an endless variety of Prosthetic Foreheads does not guarantee the existence of all possible varieties of Prosthetic Forehead. As rule 818 does not claim that Prosthetic Foreheads allow their wearers to change resolutions to proposals or to alter scores, my interpretation of existing game custom is that Prosthetic Foreheads do not allow their wearers to do these things. Hence the verdict of false.
Call For Judgement 92.9 + 2.718i - Wed Jun 12 08:32 CDT 1996
Subject: No Creativity
Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected at 1102h CDT on 7 June 1996)
this is not a name's attempt to declare the Governor's 61 points for himself by R115 is illegal, and this change should be reversed by the Scorekeeper if the change has officially been made by the Scorekeeper.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.Judge's Comments:
I am very disappointed in this is not a name's persistence on this issue after all that has been said about it, and given all of the interesting stuff going on in the game now, it is a shame to waste bandwidth on this issue now. I ask all players to read CFJ 113 before invoking R115 to adjust your score.
The transfer of points is an action which is made up of two distinct actions:
1. Reducing points from one player's score
2. Adding points to another player's score.
Either of these actions on its own is illegal. Both the reduction and the addition of points are regulated by many rules in the Ackanomic ruleset, therefore, neither one of them can be said to unregulated, and R115 is irrelevant here.
The Governor's action was illegal. His announcement was made just before he left the game, and he was still bound by the rules by then. Since reducing one own score to zero is illegal, the Governor's action was illegal as well. Once he has left the game, eir score no longer exists, and, being no longer a player, e can no longer manipulate any Ackanomic entities. Therefore the action of giving eir points, or announcing that this is not a name may claim them, was not legal to begin with.
this is not a name's action of claiming the said points was:
1. Illegal by in its own right.
2. Since the the Governor's action of giving the points was illegal, there were, in practice, no unclaimed points to be given.
Since either action alone is illegal, the only way to make transfer of points legal is to make a rule which will explicitly legalize one of those actions, provided the other one occurs simultaneously as well. Since there is no such rule, and two wrongs do not make a right, this is not a name's action is illegal. and this Judgement is judged to be TRUE
Call For Judgement 183 -
Subject: Supreme Court finalization
Judge: Brinjal (selected at 1743h on 9 June 1996)
Judgement: Retracted by Bascule
Bascule is now a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Call For Judgement 184 - Wed, 12 Jun 1996 21:42 -0400
Subject: This statement is false
Judge: this is not a name (selected Jun 11, 1996, 2230 New York Time)
Whether to apply parts of R545, "Notes and Comments", cannot be determined with finality; in fact, the application appears to be both legal and illegal.Initiator's Comments:
Malenkai's claim: By R219, I claim a win by paradox pending a verdict of TRUE on the following CFJ:Judge's Comments:
In trying to determine whether it is legal to strike the text '[[e.g this]]' from R545, one runs into a paradox in attempting to apply that selfsame rule.
The troublesome clause is:
> This rule explicitly does not apply to this rule.
You must not apply the clause, by rule (R545), but in not doing so you are applying it because the thing that prohibits you from applying it is the application of the rule itself (R545).
If you do apply it, you are violating the rule (R545), which means that you can't apply it, which leads to:
You must not apply the clause, by rule (R545), but in not doing so you are applying it because the thing that prohibits you from applying it is the application of the rule itself (R545).
If you do apply it, you are violating the rule (R545), which means that you can't apply it, which leads to:
Paradox. Its like saying "This statement is FALSE". The clause must be both applied and not applied, leading to indeterminate legality, i.e., it appears both legal and illegal leading to a verdict of TRUE. An Objective judge cannot rule otherwise. I ask the judge, should you, or should you not, apply the clause? Why?
Malenkai's reasoning is sound. A rule that requires a procedure for changing rules, but is itself an example of the type of rule it seeks to regulate, must not exclude itself from its own purview in the way that R545 does.
This situation encompasses two of the justifications in Rule 219/0 for a paradox win: that the legality of some action cannot be determined with finality, and that some action appears equally legal and illegal.
I declare Malenkai the winner of the third cycle of Ackanomic and, pending any possible appeal of this verdict, invoke R829 to require an election for two delegates to a Constitutional Convention; the third delegate will be Malenkai.
I recommend that the last sentence of R545 be modified by the Constitutional Convention to something like "This rule does not apply to the first sentence of the second paragraph of the text of this rule." I also suggest that the Convention consider rewording R664.
I must note that I find Malenkai's statement that "an objective judge cannot rule otherwise" insulting and demeaning, and I would ask him to refrain from including such statements in CFJs in the future.
Call For Judgement 185 - Wed, 12 Jun 1996 09:28 -0400
Subject: I win, take three
Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected 11-Jun-96 2300h New York Time)
Bascule has won the current cycle of Ackanomic.Initiator's Comments:
Judge's Comments:>From Wayne: > Bascule's score was at 256 on Friday morning. Then he retracted his > two proposals @ 16:00 on Friday. When I logged on Sat night, I sent > out the results of several proposals. Once I finished sending out the > proposals, I then deducted the 2 points from Bascule. If I had followed > the chronological order of events, the two points should have been > deducted before I sent out 837. > > p837.res: Bascule 256 -> 259[snip] > p848.res: Bascule 283 -> 286 > Here is where I deducted the two points from Bascule, giving him his > current score of 284. > It is apparant that timing can be very important in issues such as this. > I feel that the only fair thing to do is correct the error and declare > Bascule the winner, unless it is found that someone else has already won > before Bascule.A minor error from the Scorekeeper meant that my score was never published as being 257. Strict chronological interpretation of the rules would have meant my score was at 257 after the failure of p837. Therefore my score was 257 after the failure of p837. Therefore I won the cycle at that point.
As with all things human, there must be a chronological order, however anyone wants to have it defined; certain events take place before others.
By tradition, we have been used to keeping track of everything in the order they come in. Since this would mean a score of 257 points would have been achieved by Bascule, then that given that's the magic number, Bascule must have won.
I rule this CFJ to be TRUE
Call For Judgement 186 - Thu, 20 Jun 1996 18:00 -0400
Initiator: mr cwm
Judge: De'ghew (selected 19-Jun-96 1830h New York Time)
R829 has no effect.Initiator's Comments:
R666 provides for a certain procedure to be carried out upon a winner being declared. R829 states that some cases another procedure shall be carried out first, but does not claim precedence. (I believe "before" means "prior in time.") There is, then, a conflict. Either R666's procedure or R829's procedure can be carried out upon a win by paradox being declared, but not both. (R829 seems to imply that's R666's procedure should be carried out after R829's, but then R666's wouldn't be carried out upon the win being declared, but upon R829's procedure finishing.) With this conflict, and no claim of precedence, R666 prevails by R210, and R829 can have no effect (it can't do what it says, and we can't just make up things for it to do).Judge's Comments:
Rule 666 declares "Whenever there is a winner declared, the following process shall be conducted:". Webster defines "Whenever" to mean "at any or every time that". In the judgement of this court, this wording requires that the procedure outlined in R666 must be executed at the time a winner is declared, not at any other time. R829 requires that its process be carried out "before the procedure called for by rule 666". Rules 666 and 829 are therefore in conflict, since if the procedure outlined in R666 is to occur at the time a winner is declared, Rule 829's procedure, which necessarily takes a greater than infinitesimal amount of time, cannot occur before it.
As mr cwm points out, Rule 829 does not take precedence over Rule 666. Thus Rule 666 takes precedence and Rule 829, specifically the requirement that its procedure be followed before that of R666, cannot be legally followed.
Rule 829 has, by the ruling of this court, no effect.
Call For Judgement 187 - Mon, 01 Jul 1996 08:49 -0400
Subject: Recursive rule
Judge: Techno (selected 20-Jun-96 1800h New York Time)
Result: Declined to Judge
2nd Judge: Kelly Martin (selected 22-Jun-96 01:30h New York Time)
Judgement: FALSE at Sun, 23 Jun 1996 20:43 -0400
Appealed by: De'ghew
Supreme Court's Judgement:FALSE
Ackanomic play cannot continue.Initiator's Comments:
Rule 666 must be invoked "Whenever there is a winner declared". Because a winner has been declared, the procedure outlined in R666 must have been executed. The first several steps of R666 read as follows:Judge's Comments:
a) Ackanomic play is suspended.
b) All Chartreuse Goose Eggs and Right-Handed Grapefruit are eliminated.
c) The winner is declared the winner of the current cycle . . .
Upon the execution of step c, a winner is declared and R666 must be invoked. R666 is therefore recursive. Ackanomic play has never been resumed and is therefore still suspended. Ackanomic gameplay cannot continue.
I contend that this constitutes a Win by Paradox. I win this cycle.
There are a number of arguments that can be made regarding the effect of Rule 666's apparent self-invoking nature. Some of them have been made in other CFJs, and I leave those matters to be Judged by other Judges. However, I need not consider those arguments in order to find this CFJ FALSE.Appealer's Comments:
If the Statement is TRUE, then, at the time this CFJ was allegedly made, Ackanomic play was not possible. This is itself a contradiction: both the making of a CFJ and its judging are aspects of Ackanomic play, so if this CFJ is TRUE, then it was impossible for to have been made, and it is impossible for it to be judged. However, it is my finding of fact that I am presently engaged in the process of judging this CFJ, thus playing Ackanomic. Clearly, therefore, Ackanomic play is possible (even if, perhaps, illegal), and the statement is FALSE.
It is possible that I am mistaken in believing that I am engaged in Ackanomic play by writing this Judgement. However, I am at a loss to ascertain what activity this might be, if not Ackanomic play.
A Judgement of FALSE is hereby entered on CFJ 187 on this, the 23rd day of June, 1996.
Rule 219, "Winning by Paradox" states that if the rules are changed so that play is impossible, then a player may call for judgement on a statement to that effect. This clause allows game play to continue to the extent that a CFJ may be called to determine its unplayability. This invalidates this judgement.Supreme Court's Comments:
If the Supreme Court believes that this is not true, that is, a CFJ may not be called if the game is unplayable, then I suggest that they must consider whether R219 can have any effect.
It is true that the Court need only consider the actual statement in reaching a verdict, but R589 does not *prohibit* the consideration of context and reasoning in reaching a verdict. Furthermore, the Court usually finds it constructive to consider such.Penalty to appealer:
It is obvious that the statement was made in the context of R219. The immediate question becomes does R219 have sufficient scope to allow "gameplay" to continue past the statement claiming "Ackanomic play cannot continue" enough to allow judgement of such a statement.
If the answer to that question is No, Kelly Martin's argument is valid, and the Court must concur with the original verdict. If the answer to that question is Yes, Kelly's argument is invalidated, but that does not necessarily mean the verdict is overruled, the original statement must be judged in a game context with allows it to be judged, that is all.
The Court thus finds it necessary to explore this issue, and attempt to answer this question. The Court quotes the beginning of R219:> "If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or > if the legality of some action cannot be determined with finality, or > if some action appears equally legal and illegal, then a player may > call for judgement on a statement to that effect [...]"The rule clearly allows a player to make a CFJ beyond the point of the game where "further play is impossible". In fact, they may, in that CFJ, make a "statement to that effect" (ie, play is impossible).
The contentious issue is whether or not this part of the rule has any weight whatsoever. Should we follow what the rule says and allow a CFJ after play has become "impossible", or should we say that that is bogus and say the clause has no effect?
Good arguments have been made for both interpretations, by the initiator De'ghew, and the first judge Kelly, and by several others in the public forum, on both side of the rule. Space does not permit quotation of any beyond what has been officially submitted to the Court. Is one school of thought "right"? (any Platonists out there :))
The Court could throw its opinion into the mix, or just choose. The interpretation is *unclear*. It is the weight of *opinion* and argument. The Court will attempt to follow the rules for making judgements in such cases. The Court quotes from R215:> "All Judgements must be in accordance with all the rules then in > effect. 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."This rule not only permits the Court to consider "game custom" and "spirit of the game" in cases of unclarity; it *mandates* that it do so. To *not* consider it would be a clear violation of the rules.
A similar situation occurred with CFJ 157. At the time, the verdict of CFJ 157 declared that the game had ended before the CFJ was even called. Yet it was allowed to be called, the verdict published, etc. Furthermore, an appeal of that verdict, which claimed the game had ended, made after the game had supposedly ended, was allowed. Both the verdict and the appeal verdict were allowed to have retroactive application to the event questioned.
This had built on the previous precedents of CFJ 113, CFJ 153, and AOJ 101, solidifying the concept of "grace period after events, allowing for CFJs in response to those events, with the potential to retroactively validate or invalidate those events".
The event in the case of CFJ 157 was Robert Sevin claiming enough points to win, thus ending the game. The event in the case of this CFJ being R 666 preventing play from continuing (or the statement "Ackanomic play cannot continue" preventing play from continuing).
Thus this game custom applies to this case. Common sense, and "spirit of the game" indicate that this must be so. Consider the following example: "By R115, I wave the Wand of Zandor and cause the game to end, you cannot CFJ this action, the game is over. Lets play chess now." Its obvious that the "grace period responsive CFJ" custom originally established by CFJ 113 is needed, and currently exists. Perhaps some would feel more comfortable if it were codified as its own rule, rather than via R215 and R101. That is another issue.
The Court thus finds Kelly Martin's original argument invalid, and therefore must get to the point of actually considering the statement on which judgement was called, which is (in case we forgot):
> "Ackanomic play cannot continue"
The Court agrees with Argument 2 presented with CFJ 193. Furthermore, CFJ 193 has been found TRUE, thus negating R 666 alleged recursiveness. As R 666 is not recursive, there is no reason to believe, because of R 666, that "Ackanomic play cannot continue", as the initiator claims. There is also no other evidence presented to bolster such a claim, and the Court sees no evidence on its own, thus necessitating a verdict of FALSE.
Justice Bascule adds the following commentary on the truth of the statement "Ackanomic play cannot continue".
I concur with Kelly Martin in a matter other than the verdict reasoning, in that if further play was impossible, the adoption of proposals would become completely impermissible, contrary to Rule 112. [I was intrigued by De'ghew's argument that as "Rule changes may still occur due to the rules", the adoption of proposals would still be permissible. I disagree with this argument on the grounds that rules altering other rules would still constitute game play.]
Therefore I conclude that further play must be possible, and must concur with the original verdict of false.
Penalty: De'ghew must be fined 20 points for frivolously bothering the Judges. Additionally, he is charged 5 points for the appeal.
Call For Judgement 188 - Sun, 23 Jun 1996 21:46 -0400
Subject: R666, take two
Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected 22-Jun-96 01:30h New York Time)
Continued Ackanomic play is both legal and illegal.Initiator's Comments:
R666 is executing an infinite number of times every instant. Because of this, gameplay is both suspended and resumed at every time after and including the initial invocation of R666. Thus, player actions are both legal and illegal.Judge's Comments:
This constitutes a Win by Paradox.
First, let me say that R666 says that "play is suspended". This does not mean legal or illegal. However, it is true that it may make certain actions void or indeed illegal, depending on how "play is suspended" is defined. Unfortunately, we are never given this definition in the rules.
Does the rule imply "everything" is to be suspended? Since we have continued to distribute CFJs (as this one) and are continuing to discuss things in the public forum, and are using political parties, etc, then we must admit that by tacit agreement, there are certain things which have not been suspended, and certainly not the rule set.
In any case, "Ackanomic play", [and even "the game of Ackanomic"] can certainly continue.
But looking further even at the wording of the CFJ, it claims that play is "BOTH legal and illegal". If by that the author meant "simultaneously" both, then that is not the case. The structure of the rule clearly specifies an order of action, and however short - if any - each time when play is "suspended", they are clearly defined. In any event, it never renders the game "illegal", or even "legal" for that matter.
And even if the game was suspended for ad infinitum, then that would be definitive state, not a paradoxical one.
Since a game that is suspended and "unsuspended" at very short (or very long, we do not know) time intervals does not mean that the game itself is legal and illegal, there can be only one conclusion.
Call For Judgement 189 - Thu, 27 Jun 1996 08:38:47 -0400
Subject: R666, take three
Judge: snowgod (selected Jun 22, 1996, 08:00h New York Time)
Rule 666 cannot suspend Ackanomic play.Initiator's Comments:
Rule 112 states "The adoption of rule changes must never become completely inpermissible [sic]." Rule 112 has precedence over Rule 666 by the numerical method, since neither takes precedence explicitly and both are mutable rules. If part (a) of rule 666 suspended Ackanomic play, then the adoption of rule changes is completely impermissible while parts (b) through (k) of rule 666 are carried out. This may only take a moment, but Rule 112 says "never", so rule 666 can never suspend play.Judge's Comments:
On the other hand, I believe that if Rule 666 succeeded in suspending Ackanomic play, that the game ended at that moment, because the procedure in the rest of rule 666, including part (m) which would resume Ackanomic play, _is_ part of Ackanomic play. However, we already have a CFJ up for judgement which states "Ackanomic play cannot continue" so I won't clutter up the court with another one.
R112 states "The adoption of rule changes must never become completely inpermissible". There is no clause in R666 which prohibits rule changes. In suspending play, R666 simply makes the adoption of rule changes temporarily *impossible*. The mechanisms that allow for the *adoption* of rule changes are still permitted by the rules, even if for a brief moment they are put on hold. If R112 read "The adoption of rule changes must never become completely impossible" I would have to agree with /dev/joe and return a judgement of true, however as the rules are written, I am obligated to return a verdict of FALSE.
Call For Judgement 190 - Tue, 25 Jun 1996 20:07 -0400
Subject: Frobnotz the Pyraic Frobnotzer
Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected 23-Jun-96 20:45h New York Time)
Judgement: TRUE (at Sun, 23 Jun 1996 22:12 -0400)
Appealed by: Kelly Martin
Appeal Judgement: FALSE
The Blueprint for the Pyraic Frobnotzer specifies illegal behaviour for Gadgets that would be created from it, and thus should be destroyed per Rule 594, clause (ii).Initiator's Comments:
(The Blueprint is reproduced after the reasoning for reference).Judge's Comments:
Gadgets created from the Blueprint (hereafter called Frobnotzers) have behaviour that is in conflict with R 105 (Immutable):
"Any proposed rule change must be written down (or otherwise communicated in print media) before it is voted on. If adopted, it must guide play in the form in which it was voted on."
Specifically, the Frobnotzer's ability to swap noun phrases in the rule set would violate the above rule. Clearly the Frobnotzer's ability is in direct conflict with this rule. Its Blueprint must therefore be destroyed.Announced at Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:14:39 -0500 (CDT)
Blueprint: Pyraic Frobnotzer
A Pyraic Frobnotzer has two nodes (positive and negative.) They are made of titanium (+) and green jumblium (-), and never wear out.
The owner of a Pyraic Frobnotzer may attach one of its nodes to any noun phrase anywhere in the rule set, by announcing the action publicly. The identity of the noun phrase in question must be clear and unconditional, though. This can be done repeatedly, and a node can be moved from one noun phrase to another in this way.
The owner of a Pyraic Frobnotzer may also set it off by announcing that action publicly-- unless the Pyraic Frobnotzer is broken. When a Pyraic Frobnotzer is set off, it starts to hum. It will stop humming the next time it is broken or destroyed.
When a Pyraic Frobnotzer has been humming for five days, the following happens: If the Pyraic Frobnotzer's two nodes are attached to two noun phrases which are both plural or both singular, then those two noun phrases trade location within the rule set, and the Pyraic Frobnotzer is destroyed in a magnificent gout of golden flame. Otherwise, the Pyraic Frobnotzer chokes, sputters, whines, and dies; it is then broken.
A Pyraic Frobnotzer is a mechanical Gadget. When it is first created, it is not broken.
The rule set is a very private domain that contains the rules by which our existences in Acka are to by governed. The sanctity of these very rules is protected by R105 by ensuring all rule changes are to be written down and voted upon.Appealer's Comments:
It would be not only illegal to go against R105, but also dangerous. Therefore, by R594/1, it must be destroyed. [May the guardian of the rule set have mercy on your blue print.]
this argument, while a beautiful appeal to emotion, is utterly flawed, not to mention thoroughly devoid of logical reasoning. i have little choice but to appeal this judgement, and i accept the penalty for doing so.Supreme Court's Comments:
Rule 105 applies only to _proposed_ rule changes. the rule changes that the Pyraic Frobnotzer would impose are not proposed rule changes and thus Rule 105 has no jurisdiction over them. the ability of a Gadget to impose rule changes is restricted only by Rule 115, which states that the rules may be changed "only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it."
now, it is clearly the case that a Gadget may be empowered by "a rule or set of rules" to change the Rules: Rule 660/1 states that "Rules [...] are protected entities" and Rule 786/2(vi) states that "A Gadget may create, destroy, or manipulate a protected entity if its Blueprint so specifies." so, a Gadget is empowered to impose rule changes if its Blueprint so specifies. since the Pyraic Frobnotzer's Blueprint clearly specifies that it is to impose Rule Changes under certain circumstances, it is empowered to do so.
in the above, i have concerned myself primarily with the "written down" requirement of Rule 105, which i presume is the portion of Rule 105 that Calvin N Hobbes invokes in his Judgement; his reasoning is unclear. it may be that Mr. Hobbes instead alleges that the Pyraic Frobnotzer actually offends the second clause of Rule 105, in causing a prior Proposal to no longer "guide play in the form in which it was voted on." in defeating this claim, i present the following two counterarguments:
first, the manner in which an adopted Proposal guides play is in imposing a rule change (we will disregard Resolutions for the moment). once the rule change has been imposed, the proposal no longer has any function of its own, and the application of another rule change to the rules affected by that past proposal does not interfere with that Proposal's guiding action.
second, if changing the wording of a Rule adopted or amended as a result of a past Proposal offended Rule 105, it would be impossible to amend any Rule created by a Proposal, or to amend again any Rule amended by a Proposal. clearly, Rule 105 is to be construed as to prohibit modifications to a Proposal between the time it was proposed and the time is enacted, and not to prohibit further modifications to those entities affected by that Proposal at some future time.
The legality of a Pyraic Frobnotzer to change the ruleset appears to rely on it not needing to propose a rule change as per R105.Penalty to original judge:
From R115:"changing the rules...is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it."
From R660:"Rules...are protected entities"
From R786:"A Gadget may create, destroy, or manipulate a protected entity if its Blueprint so specifies."
Rule 115 describes limitations on how rules may be altered. Rule 105 is part of one way to alter the ruleset, i.e. through proposals, Rule 786 describes another way, through Gadgets. Either way is legal as per Rule 115. Therefore the Pyraic Frobnotzer's blueprint does not contravene R105, and should not be destroyed on that basis.
The Supreme Court therefore returns a verdict of False, overturning the original decision.
Additional material not relevant to the decision:
Justice Bascule commends Justice Malenkai on his integrity, for not attempting to filibuster this decision, since it was Justice Malenkai who submitted the original CFJ.
Calvin N Hobbes is penalized one point for the original judgement. Kelly Martin is not penalized, but owes 5 points for the appeal (I believe).