Call For Judgement 221 -
Subject: Retracted proposals
Judge: ThinMan (selected Jul 9, 1996, 19:04h New York Time)
A retracted proposal can fail due to quorum, and then penalties according to rule 207, 3rd paragraph shall be distributed.Initiator's Comments:
[none provided - CotC]Judge's Comments:
The court found the following rules relevant:
R 104 (immutable) "All proposals made in the proper way shall be voted on. [...]"
R 201 (mutable) "Quorum is defined to be 50% of the active registered players."
R 207 (mutable) "[...] When a proposal does not meet quorum, each active player who was not on vacation and abstained on the proposal shall lose 5 points and be placed on vacation."
R 414 (mutable) "The Duties of the Tabulator are: (a) to count votes on each proposal (b) to maintain the voting records [...] (c) to report the acceptance or rejection of each proposal [...]"
R 423 (mutable) "A player may retract their own proposal [...] All votes cast on a retracted proposal shall be ignored. [...]"
R 463 (mutable) "Players may vote YES, NO, or PRESENT on a proposal, or choose not to vote on a proposal, which is called abstaining. [...]"
From CFJ 219 we have that R 423 does not conflict with R 104, or with any other immutable rule. In particular, that means that retracted proposals shall still be voted on. It is entirely possible, therefore, that such a proposal may fail due to quorum, and in that case the relevant section of R 207 clearly applies. The statement submitted for judgement is therefore TRUE. However, this does not establish that every retracted proposal _will_ fail due to not meeting quorum. I note that R 414 has precedence over R 423 by the numerical method. Thus by R 414, the tabulator must count votes on retracted proposals and maintain the voting records for each player on retracted proposals. In my opinion, maintaining voting records is inconsistent with ignoring votes. Therefore, R 423 has no effect. Finally, I note that the above reasoning is merely this court's opinion, and is non-binding. Only the truth of the submitted statement is entered into game custom.
Call For Judgement 222 - Fri, 12 Jul 1996 19:40 -0400
Subject: Voting Paradox
Judge: Kelly Martin (selected Jul 9, 1996, 19:10h New York Time)
The legality of voting on proposals submitted to the Promoter by email cannot be determined with finality.Initiator's Comments:
Voting on proposals is regulated by the Rules, in particular by Rule 104. According to the custom established by CFJ 113, therefore, no voting on proposals is legal except as specified by the Rules.Judge's Comments:
Rule 104 requires that proposals submitted in the "proper" manner be voted on. No Rule allows proposals submitted in any other manner to be voted on, and no voting on proposals is legal except as specified by the Rules, so voting on proposals is legal only if they have been submitted in the "proper" manner.
Game custom is regulated by the Rules, in particular by Rule 216 which makes judgements become part of game custom, and by Rule 545 which establishes that "the presence of a note in a Rule has no effect on gameplay" is part of game custom. According to the game custom established by CFJ 113, therefore, game custom cannot be established or modified except as specified by the Rules. No Rule establishes anything other than CFJ results and the above excerpt from R545 as part of game custom, thus nothing else is legally part of game custom.
The "proper" manner for submitting proposals is nowhere defined in the Rules (although R396 establishes to whom they must be submitted), so by R101 we must interpret the phrase according to game custom. The "proper" manner has not been defined by CFJ, either, so it is not part of game custom. It is, therefore, impossible to interpret R104, and impossible to determine the legality of voting on proposals submitted to the Promoter by email.
Furthermore, I note that although R215 instructs judges to consider game custom and "the spirit of the game" when the rules are unclear or inconsistent, "the spirit of the game" is also undefined in the rules and in game custom, so that part of R215 cannot be legally interpreted. This may constitute another paradox itself. In any case, it underscores the fact that there are no legal grounds on which a judge may determine the correct interpretation of R 104.
If this CFJ is judged TRUE, then its initiator (ThinMan) will win the game according to Rule 219.
I interpret "submitted in the proper manner" as "submitted in compliance with the Rules", and note that Rule 396 specifies a method of submitting Proposals is specified in Rule 396 ("A proposal by a Player shall be made by submitting it to the Promoter.") Thus, in the opinion of this Judge, a Proposal has been "submitted in the proper manner" if it was submitted to the Promoter, and if the act of submission in no way violates any other Rule. Note that I reject ThinMan's contention that Rule 396 does not specify a "proper manner".
In this Judgement, I do not broach the issue of the nature, scope, or applicability of game custom, and this Judgement has no precedent in such matters.
Call For Judgement 223 - Tue, 09 Jul 1996 23:43 -0400
Subject: Senatorial Privilege
Judge: Malenkai (selected Jul 9, 1996, 19:23h New York Time)
Voting on the confirmation of a Justice is a Privilege of the Senators' Office.Initiator's Comments:
It is not explicitly designated as a Duty or Privilege. It is, however, clearly an exercise of Power, which makes it a Privilege. The appropriate clauses from R609:Judge's Comments:
"(ii) Duties:The Duties of an Office are the tasks that the Officer(s) are expected to carry out to facilitate the conduct of Ackanomic business. Duties tend to be typified by the compilation, maintenance, and distribution of information.(iii) Privileges:The Privileges of an Office are the considerations the Officer(s) receive according to the Rules regulating the Office. Examples can include the receipt of Ackanomic currency, the ability to cast extra votes in certain circumstance, or special consideration with regards to making appointments or issuing CFJ decisions."
The initiator quotes R 609 in his comments, in an attempt to define whether or not a confirmation vote is a privilege. My look at the rules also indicates that this is the applicable rule to use to figure this out, so I will use it as well.
The Senators' ability to make a confirmation vote appears to be both a duty and a privilege, as defined by R 609. Lets look closer at each case:
Clearly the vote is to "carry out to facilitate the conduct of Ackanomic business". Confirming Justices is Ackanomic business, thus a "duty" from (ii) above.
Clearly it is also "the ability to cast extra votes in certain circumstance, or special consideration with regards to making appointments", thus a privilege from (iii) above.
Therefore it is both a duty and a privilege. I was not asked to decide if it was *one or the other*, or if duty and privilege were mutually exclusive (although I have shown that they are not), only to judge the statement. Therefore the statement on which judgement was called is TRUE.
Call For Judgement 224 - Sun, 14 Jul 1996 03:03 -0400
Subject: Judicial Confirmation
Judge: Mohammed (selected Jul 9, 1996, 19:38h New York Time) (quit the game)
2nd Judge: this is not a name (selected Jul 13, 1996, 12:57h New York Time) (declined to judge)
3rd Judge: /dev/joe (selected Jul 14, 1996, 01:45h New York Time)
pTang1001001sos has been confirmed to the Office of Justice.Initiator's Comments:
The acting Senators do not have the ability to vote on confirmation of Justices. Of the Senators able to vote on the confirmation, I received 1 confirming vote, and no dissenting votes.2nd Judge's Comments:
By R507, the Senate has agreed upon a candidate, who was therefore duly confirmed and currently holds Office.
I must decline judgement on this. As an Acting Senator, I believe that I have a conflict of interest. However, I would ask the next judge to simply read the second paragraph of 457, which makes it clear that a false verdict is necessary.3rd Judge's Comments:
Casting votes to confirm justices is a task "that the Officer(s) are expected to carry out to facilitate the conduct of Ackanomic business" and is therefore (by Rule 609 section (ii)) a duty of the office of Senator. By rule 609 (iii), casting such votes is also a privilege.
Acting Senators may be prohibited from casting confirmation votes by rule 609 (iv), which denies Acting Officers the privileges of the office. However, the players who voted NO on pTang1001001sos's confirmation were not "Acting Senators". They were players appointed by the Speaker, in accordance with the second paragraph of Rule 457, to perform the duties of the vacationing Senators.
Rule 457 allows these players to perform these duties. Rule 457 says nothing about whether these players also receive the privileges of the offices -- it is neither allowed nor prohibited. Protection (for privileges which are protected) or reasoning along the lines of that in CFJ 113 (for other privileges), would probably prohibit these players receiving any privileges which were not explicitly granted, whether by those privileges also being duties, or otherwise.
Thus, the 3 NO votes submitted on pTang1001001sos's confirmation were valid, and pTang1001001sos was not confirmed.
The court recommends that through appropriate proposals, the issues of privileges, duties, etc. be fixed in the rules. Although the players mentioned in this CFJ were not acting senators, by Rule 613 fon _is_ currently an acting senator, who is by Rule 609 (iv) responsible for carrying out the duty of voting on confirmations, while being expressly denied the privilege of voting on confirmations. This is not quite a contradiction, but it is not a very good situation either. Of course, we have had vacationing senators for a long time prohibited from casting confirmation votes (by rule 457) while being responsible for doing so, so perhaps the situation is not as new as it might appear to be.
Call For Judgement 225 - Sun, 14 Jul 1996 17:00 -0400
Subject: Evil Ballot Stuffer
Judge: De'ghew (selected Jul 9, 1996, 19:44h New York Time) (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: Mohammed (left the game)
3rd Judge: Robin Hood (Selected Jul 14, 02:00h New York Time)
The Evil Ballot Stuffer, as explained in pTang1001001's public statement, works just as described.Initiator's Comments:
[none provided - CotC]Judge's Comments:
Since the ballot box stuffer can only cast votes on ptang's behalf, its actions are his actions. The entity therefore falls gives ptang multiple votes contrary to rule 390.
Neither the voting gnome nor Tammany are under one players exclusive control.
Call For Judgement 226 -
Subject: Judge Eligibility
Judge: Mellon(selected Jul 9, 1996, 23:56h New York Time)
Kelly Martin is not eligible to judge CFJ 222.Initiator's Comments:
According to R691, for failure to respond to CFJ 216, the speaker must now send Kelly Martin a message asking if she wishes to remain in the game, and she has four days to respond. It is my contention that until the time of Kelly's response to that message that she wishes to remain in the game, she must be considered ineligible to judge any new CFJ's.Judge's Comments:
R588 states: "... a Judge is randomly selected from among the other active players that are eligible to judge CFJs, as defined by any other applicable rules."
According to R691, Kelly Martin is/was a deadbeat judge. The question is if a deatbeat judge is eligible to judge or not. R691 does not say anything on this matter, and neither do any other rule. So my verdict to CFJ226 is: FALSE.
Call For Judgement 227 - Tue, 23 Jul 1996 22:34 +0100
Subject: Game Custom Paradox
Judge: ThinMan (selected Jul 10, 1996, 20:11h New York Time) (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: pTang1001001sos (selected Jul 11, 1996, 19:47h New York Time) (declined to judge)
3rd Judge: this is not a name (selected Jul 11, 1996, 22:08h New York Time)
Judgement: FALSE at Fri, 12 Jul 1996 21:39 -0400
Appealed by /dev/joe to the Supreme Court
Supreme Court's Judgement: FALSE
It is impossible to determine whether there is any game custom beyond that explicitly defined by rule 545 and by the judgements of CFJs which should legally be used in interpreting the rules (as in Rule 101) and in making judgements when the rules are unclear (as in Rule 215).Initiator's Comments:
If this CFJ is judged true, /dev/joe wins the game by rule 219.1st Judge's Comments:
When Rule 660 came into effect on April 30th, Game Custom became protected. Thus, it "may not be created, destroyed, or manipulated except as specified by the Rules." (rule 592 -- this was "except in accordance with the rules" until proposal 869 was accepted on June 13th.) This rule does not invalidate pre-existing game custom, nor does any other rule, rule change, or CFJ (except in specific instances where old game custom is replaced by newer game custom or rules which contradict the older game custom). Thus, game custom in many areas is unchanged from that time.
Before that time, it was unclear whether game custom could be changed other than by the ways defined in the rules. Rule 115 says (and has always said, since the beginning of the game):Whatever is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.In CFJ 113, this rule was interpreted to mean that anything that is regulated in any way by the rules can only be manipulated as the rules specify. This was accepted as a "game custom" by the judge of that CFJ, and has similarly been accepted as game custom by many judges since that time. Note, though, that this was not the statement of that CFJ, so it did not become an explicit part of game custom by rule 216. (The statement of the CFJ was that Wayne's gaining of 85 points [when he tried to claim them by rule 115] was illegal, and thus Wayne did not win the game.) Nor do the statements of any other CFJs address this issue. (CFJs 168, 208, and 216 concern game custom, but not this issue in general or as it applies to game custom itself.)
Before Rule 660 was created, game custom was regulated by four rules:
Rule 216 defines a way for something to become part of game custom.
Rule 545 (originally 466) defines a specific game custom.
Rule 101 gives an allowed use for game custom. (interpreting the rules)
Rule 215 gives another allowed use.
Rules 101, 215, and 216 have existed in their current forms since the beginning of the game.
Therefore (*), if we accepted this game custom at that time, then game custom could not be created except as the rules specify -- and only rules 216 and 545 allowed it to be created. But then we could not have accepted this game custom, because the the rules which were judged to have this effect have existed, unchanged, since the beginning of the game. However, if we did not accept this game custom, then we can create game custom in ways besides what is specified by the rules, and the actions of many players show them as having created this game custom. Return to (*) above.
By the argument in the preceding paragraph, it is impossible to determine with finality whether game custom could have ever been created, other than that explicitly defined by the judgements of CFJs or in the rules. Thus, it is impossible to determine what game custom existed at the time Rule 660 took effect, and therefore it is impossible to determine what game custom exists now.
I must decline to judge CFJ 227. I do not consider a pre-established opinion on the matter to constitute a conflict of interest, but I do note that the outcome of this CFJ, returned before CFJ 222, should dictate the outcome of CFJ 222 -- but not necessarily the other way around. That _is_ a conflict of interest. If I win, I want it to be completely on the up and up.2nd Judge's Comments:
See CFJ 232.Appealer's Comments:
A true judgement on CFJ 232 is not sufficient to make CFJ 227 be false. CFJ 232 could be appealed and judged False. Furthermore, even if 232 is true, it is possible that 227 is true, and that its judgement cannot legally be delivered. Consider the original reasoning.Supreme Court's Comments:
The reasoning in a CFJ is not _explicit_ game custom. It may or may not be implicit game custom. Implicit game custom may become explicit game custom through submitting a statement for CFJ. The evolution of implicit game custom is a process that does not require "manipulation" of game custom by any player.
The verity of the statement in CFJ 227 depends on any change being defined as a manipulation. Game custom is self-evolving, changing without being manipulated. Thus, the reasoning of CFJ 113 can become a part of game custom without running afoul of the reasoning of CFJ 113. Additionally, the decisions of CFJ's are explicit game custom - the implication is that there is other, non-explicit, game custom. The rules that indicate that game custom should be used do not specify that only explicit game custom should be used. It is, then, determined (and thus, is possible to determine) that game custom beyond that explicitly created by rules can and should be considered on those occasions when the rules specify that game custom should be used.
Call For Judgement 228 - Tue, 23 Jul 1996 22:42:07 +0100
Subject: Judging CFJ 227
Judge: Robin Hood (selected Jul 11, 1996, 01:03h New York Time)
Judgement: FALSE at Sun, 14 Jul 1996 13:38 -0400
Appealed by Malenkai to the Supreme Court
Supreme Court's Judgement: FALSE
CFJ 227 cannot be judged TRUE.Initiator's Comments:
CFJ 227 asserts the truth of the following statement:Judge's Comments:>It is impossible to determine whether there is any game custom beyond >that explicitly defined by rule 545 and by the judgements of CFJs >which should legally be used in interpreting the rules (as in >Rule 101) and in making judgements when the rules are unclear >(as in Rule 215).R 215 reads, in full:>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.The first key point is: "when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the statement in question". Lets look at the questions of "clarity" and "silence":
silence: What do the rules have to say about the "[possibility of determining] whether there is any game custom beyond that explicitly defined...". Scant little, if any at all. I ask the Judge to find a rule which speaks to the statement. If it does, does it speak *clearly*?:
clarity: Are the rules "clear" on the statement in question. Webster's defines "clear" a few ways, notably: "free from obscurity or ambiguity; easily understood; UNMISTAKABLE; free from doubt". Do these factually describe the rules with respect to what they have to say, assuming they are not silent, about the statement in question? They do not. There has been plenty of debate about the regulation of this issue. That is not a sign of clarity. Furthermore, if it is clear, why call a CFJ? The fact of the matter is that the rules are unclear about virtually every CFJ; if they weren't, we wouldn't need them.
The Judge need not agree with both points above, just one, to make the "when" clause of "when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the statement in question" TRUE, leading to:
"then the Judge shall consider currently existing game custom [...] in reaching a decision." 
Yet CFJ 227's statement alleges:
"It is impossible to determine whether there is any game custom beyond [certain specific types] in making judgements when the rules are unclear".
This statement (CFJ 227), alleges that it is impossible to determine the extant body of game custom. Either that allegation is true or untrue. If it is untrue, then CFJ 227 cannot be judged TRUE, obviously.
If it is TRUE, then the CFJ 227 Judge cannot even determine what game custom exists, and therefore cannot "consider currently existing game custom in reaching a decision", as in  above.
The Judge therefore cannot follow the rules in reaching a verdict, and therefore cannot legally reach a verdict at all, and thus obviously cannot reach a verdict of TRUE in this case, either.
Therefore, whether or not you accept the hypothesis of CFJ 227, neither way can lead you to a verdict of TRUE when judging it.
The first sentence of R215 states judgements are always correct. This implicitly means that rules may not have had the meanings they were thought to have, which is definitely allowable. The rules don't change but may be correctly interpreted for the first time long after their adoption.Appealer's Comments:
The second clause says only that judges need consider custom etc, it does not require them to act upon it.
This means that the paradoxical reasoning in both 227/8 is based on false premises.
227 may be ruled true or false at the judges whim.
I'm afraid I have to appeal the verdict and acknowledge the 5 point penalty for doing so. I have issue with the following part of the Judge's reasoning:Supreme Court's Comments:> 227 may be ruled true or false at the judges whim.I believe that statement is FALSE. I believe the rules specify specific criteria for reaching judgement, and "whim" is not one of them. This is an important point, not just for this verdict, but for all verdicts.
My argument derives its strength from the fact that "whim" may *not* be used to reach a verdict; in fact, it takes the assertion of CFJ 227 and shows how that compromises the specific judicial process described in the rules.
If whim is allowed, then CFJ 228 is obviously FALSE. Otherwise, this issue must be explored more by the Supreme Court.
Given that the Supreme Court has ruled 227 FALSE, could it rule rule 228 TRUE on that basis? If the statement in 228 had been "CFJ 227 _will_ be judged FALSE", then the Supreme Court could have happily ruled 228 TRUE. However, CFJ 228 alleged that CFJ 227 _cannot_ be ruled true. Whilst ultimately there can only be one verdict, that does not preclude other verdicts being returned that are later overturned by the Supreme Court (if this were not the case, the Supreme Court would never overturn any verdicts). The judge of CFJ 227 could have considered the rules and game custom as required by rule 215, and returned a verdict of TRUE (for instance, /dev/joe clearly believes CFJ 227 to be true). Therefore, CFJ 227 _could_ have been ruled TRUE, even though it wasn't.
Call For Judgement 229 - Fri, 12 Jul 1996 19:44 -0400
Subject: Spirit of the Game
Judge: Bascule (selected Jul 11, 1996, 01:43h New York Time) (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: this is not a name (selected Jul 11, 1996, 19:55h New York Time)
Spirit of the game is permitted and unregulated, by Rule 115, because it is not prohibited or regulated.Initiator's Comments:
In the entire rule set, the term "spirit of the game" appears only in Rule 215.Judge's Comments:
/dev/joe is correct. Rule 215 is clear that it does not regulate or restrict the spirit of the game (nor, of course, does it define it).
In the court's opinion, the spirit of the game includes basic attributes such as the fact that Ackanomic is a play-by-email nomic, and other such things that are beyond the scope of the rules. The fact that the rules are to be parsed in English, for example, unless any particular rule states otherwise, can be deemed to be part of the spirit of the game. (cf. pTang1001001sos's reasoning in CFJ 231.)
Call For Judgement 230 - Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:33 -0400
Subject: Claiming to win
Judge: Pascal (selected Jul 11, 1996, 01:48h New York Time) (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: this is not a name (selected Jul 11, 1996, 22:00h New York Time)
Judgement: FALSE at Fri, 12 Jul 1996 21:25 -0400
Appealed to the Supreme Court by Techno at Sun, 14 Jul 1996 01:14 -0400
Supreme Court's Judgement: TRUE
I claim to win the game, and no one can stop me..Initiator's Comments:
This CFJ cannot be determined with finality, as I can appeal the ruling for infinity. per R219/0, I must be declared the winner.Judge's Comments:
Oh, please.Appealer's Comments:
The mere fact that I am, and can continue to appeal this verdict, my statement is True.Supreme Court's Comments:
Techno has, indeed, claimed to win, and no one can stop him. The Court wishes to point out, however, that the fact that Techno has claimed to win does not, itself, indicate that he has won.Penalty to original judge:
Call For Judgement 231 - Thu, 11 Jul 1996 22:52 -0400
Subject: External Concept
Judge: /dev/joe (selected Jul 11, 1996, 20:09h New York Time)
Before the adoption of R660, "game custom" was a concept external to the scope of the Rules.Initiator's Comments:
First thing is to establish that there are things outside the scope of the Rules. The meanings of the words used in the Rule set, for example. Or deductive reasoning.Judge's Comments:
Is it allowable for a Player to declare that the text "rules" really refers to a particular species of mammal referred to in English as "skunk"? No. Nor can it be in any playable game. Even the Rule "The Rules must be parsed in English" must be parsed in English before we know what it says. What if I claim that the Rule was written in some other language?
Is it allowable for a Player to claim that when A implies B and B implies C, A implies not C? No. The implications of tinkering in this realm are obviously disastrous.
Some may blame all this on R115. Actually, any game must have understandings that are external to the Rules. It must, or it is broken before it begins. I refer you back to my language argument two paragraphs above. No matter what any Rule's text says, we must go outside the Rules in order to parse it.
The claim of this CFJ is that game custom was one of these things that was external to the scope of the Rules. It was not an acka-entity that could be manipulated freely. Rather, it evolved following social rules that are entirely outside the purview of the Rules.
I accept judgement on this (although if it was only a slightly different statement, I would have refused, for it would be too similar to a CFJ I myself submitted), and I judge it false.
I (somewhat) agree with a statement posted recently by snowgod; game custom _should_ be something external to the scope of the rules. However, this is not so, for since the beginning of the game, Rule 216 has defined a procedure for explicitly creating game custom. I will not attempt to reason here whether game custom could have been created in other ways, outside of the rules, before rule 660 came into effect. I must follow rule 215, and judge the statement in accordance with the rules (unless they are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the matter). The rules are not silent on the matter; they are not inconsistent (no rule conflicts with the way rule 216 allows for the explicit creation of game custom), and rule 216 is one of the few rules in the rule set (in this judge's opinion) that is clear.
The way "game custom" is used in Ackanomic's rule set does not agree with the customary English definition of the word "custom"; however, a CFJ is not an effective manner to change this, because of the requirement in rule 215 that my judgement is in accordance with the rules.
Call For Judgement 232 - Jul 22 1996, 16:47 EDT
Subject: Halting Problem
Judge: snowgod (selected Jul 11, 1996, 21:16h New York Time)
Judgement: TRUE at Fri, 12 Jul 1996 08:34 -0400
Appealed by /dev/joe to the Supreme Court
Supreme Court's Judgement: TRUE
If CFJ 227 is judged TRUE, its verdict may not be delivered.Initiator's Comments:
To prove the Truth of the above statement, I must demonstrate how Judging CFJ 227 TRUE leads to the impossibility of delivering its verdict. In such case, it would also be impossible to deliver the verdict on any CFJ (including 222), but that fact would not be known, in general.Judge's Comments:
CFJ 227 asserts the Truth of the following statement:>It is impossible to determine whether there is any game custom beyond >that explicitly defined by rule 545 and by the judgements of CFJs >which should legally be used in interpreting the rules (as in Rule 101) >and in making judgements when the rules are unclear (as in Rule 215).For this demonstration, I need not accept the Truth of the above statement, only *assume* that it is judged TRUE, by its Judge, for the purposes of discussion.
Assuming it is Judged TRUE, how does the Judge deliver Judgement? I quote from R 213, Delivering Judgement:> Having accepted the appointment, a Judge has exactly one week in which > to post an official Judgement. A Judge who fails to deliver Judgement > within that period is penalized 10 points.The key phrase is "in which to post an official judgement". Post it to whom? The CotC? The Supreme Court of Uruguay? Post it how? Via snail mail to Austin, or to the CotC in Pennsylvania? An international datagram to Uruguay? email??
The rules are "silent", and "unclear" on the issue. R 101 gives a method to interpret the rules; namely "in accordance with currently existing game custom".
Yet the Judge has the Truth of CFJ 227's statement, assumed above:
"It is impossible to determine whether there is any game custom [...] which should legally be used in interpreting the rules (as in Rule 101)."
The Judge cannot legally interpret how to "post" as in above. He or she cannot determine whether to send it to Uruguay. He or she sits there forever, unable to figure out how to deliver judgement, and thus cannot.
I note that this argument could not be applied to CFJ 222 directly, because you cannot assume the Truth of the reasoning from the Truth of the verdict :(. Compliments to ThinMan.
Malenkai's argument is solid and this judge sees no flaws in it. I am therefore returning a judgement of true.Appealer's Comments:
The judge would like to state that it is his personal belief that game custom cannot be solely regulated by the rules, as it evolves on it's own accord, but since currently it seems to have evolved into a form of itself that can be controlled by the rules it exists in that form.
The flaw in Malenkai's reasoning is that he interprets a TRUE judgement ofSupreme Court's Comments:"It is impossible to determine whether there is any game custom [...] which should legally be used in interpreting the rules (as in Rule 101)."to mean that the Judge cannot legally interpret how to "post" as Rule 213.
The statement being judged in CFJ 227 is not that there is no game custom, but that it is indeterminate whether traditions that developed outside of true CFJs can be legally accepted into the game as what the rules call "game custom". If this is true, then there are multiple game states, among which we cannot determine which is correct. In at least one of these game states, the game custom exists that judges should e-mail their judgements on CFJs to the clerk of the court.
If it could not be determined whether any game custom beyond that explicitly created by Rules and CFJ's could be considered, then we certainly could not use any such non-explicit game custom to determine the legality of any action, including the legality of various methods of posting CFJ decisions. The "multiple game states" argument is groundless. The fact that one state includes posting to the CotC as the proper method of decision submission is useless if it can not be determined whether that is the legal state of the game.
Call For Judgement 233 - Fri, 12 Jul 1996 19:25 -0400
Subject: Potatoes and Godel
Judge: ThinMan (selected Jul 12, 1996, 00:26h New York Time)
Proposals 922 and 924 were Adopted, and thus all effects which occur when proposals are Adopted should occur with respect to these 2.Initiator's Comments:
As  below, for each proposal, I have included the published voting results, including who voted yes. I note that the voting periods for these proposals ended 00:22 and 00:23 EDT, Jun 26, 1996. I also note that my Yes vote for each was not tallied, and that in each case, the addition of my Yes vote would have given the proposals enough votes to be accepted, by the rules in effect at the time.Judge's Comments:
As  below, I give a cut from the nomicbot of my voting results for the proposals in question. I note that it is not the full e-mail, with header, but such can be provided to the Judge, if the Judge requires such evidence.
There is no reason that my votes should not have been counted, and applied to the results. I note that I left the game very close to that time, and in doing so, probably caused the confusion, and apologize. The date of the e-mail announcing that I was leaving the game is Wed, 3 Jul 1996 01:23:57 EDT. (I have that one too, if the Judge needs it). Note that this is after the voting period on the proposals ended. Furthermore, I note that I didn't officially leave the game until the Registrar announced the fact, although this is not really relevant.
Upon a verdict of TRUE, the rules will be updated with the changes called for by the Proposals, scores adjusted, and the effects in the proposals carried out, including, but not limited to, the Web-Harfer's points for posting Godel information on the Web-Page. [Its interesting to note that the Web-Harfer provides a link to Penrose, one of my favorites. I would recommend "The Emperor's New Mind" and "Shadow's of the Mind" by Roger Penrose].
Here are the voting results for : 922 Proposal 922 - Wed Jun 26 00:22:49 EDT 1996 Lazy Malenkai (Randy Hall) Quorum met : 17 eligible voters -- 14 players cast votes 7 YES votes 4 NO votes 3 PRESENT votes Proposal FAILS Malenkai loses 9 points. -9 -> -18 7 YES votes: 1 point each Niccolo Flychuck 0 -> 1 this is not a name (None Yet) 1 -> 2 /dev/joe Nobs 9 -> 10 mr cwm (None Yet) 1 -> 2 pTang1001001sos 0 -> 1 Wayne Underworld 0 -> 1 Mohammed Nobs 1 -> 2--------------------------------------------------------------------Here are the voting results for : 924 Proposal 924 - Wed Jun 26 00:23:35 EDT 1996 Required Reading Malenkai (Randy Hall) Quorum met : 17 eligible voters -- 14 players cast votes 9 YES votes 5 NO votes 1 PRESENT votes Proposal FAILS Malenkai loses 9 points. -27 -> -36 9 YES votes: 1 point each Robin Hood 0 -> 1 De'ghew Underworld 1 -> 2 Bascule 1 -> 2 snowgod (None Yet) 3 -> 4 this is not a name (None Yet) 3 -> 4 /dev/joe Nobs 10 -> 11 (None Yet) Unity vote = 0 mr cwm (None Yet) 3 -> 4 pTang1001001sos 2 -> 3------------------------------------------------------------
Vote recorded : "#vote 922 Yes" YES 922 -- Lazy Vote recorded : "#vote 923 Yes" YES 923 -- Gimme that Gnome Vote recorded : "#vote 924 Yes" YES 924 -- Required Reading
The Tabulator has acknowledged that Malenkai cast the votes as he described, so there is no disagreement about the facts presented above. I find that rule 104 requires that the determination of the acceptance or rejection of a proposal occur at the end of the voting period. It may take the Tabulator some time to figure out what that determination was and to publish the results, but it seems clear to me that the conditions at the end of the voting period hold sway.
Moreover, I note that R207 requires that some scoring occur when a proposal is rejected or when a proposal is adopted, which as I said, occurs at the end of the voting period. The Scorekeeper may take some time to publish the scores, but it seems to me clear that they are _effective_ as soon as the voting period ends.
Call For Judgement 234 - Jul 22 1996, 16:47 EDT
Subject: Fable of the Reconstruction
Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (chosen July 12, 22:55 EDT)
Judgement: TRUE at Sat, 13 Jul 1996 11:22 -0400
Appealed by ThinMan to the Supreme Court
Supreme Court's Judgement: TRUE
R 558 is, and has been since it was adopted, "wholly void and without effect".Initiator's Comments:
R 105 says of a proposed rule change: "If adopted, it must guide play in the form it was voted on".Judge's Comments:
Game custom has rendered "rule change" to be any rule amendment, or creation of a new rule, ie, a change to the rules. Even if it is strictly constructed to mean an amendment, however, my reasoning below holds.
Thus a rule, or an amendment to a rule, must guide play in the form it was voted on. Ie, it must have the "effect" of guiding play in the form it was voted on.
R 558 claims the following, of entities: "Dormant entities have no effect". It also defines, implicitly, that a rule is an entity. Other rules and game custom also allow the fact that rules are entities, therefore, it says "Dormant [rules] have no effect".
R 105 claims rules have an "effect" of guiding play in their voted form, whilst R 558 claims certain types of rules have no effects whatsoever. R 105 does not defer precedence to allow any certain type of rule to avoid its provisions, therefore R 105 and R 558 are in conflict in whether rules can have effect.
This is an Immutable/Mutable inconsistency. By R 108, R 558 is, and always has been, "wholly void and without effect", and a verdict of TRUE is necessary.
[[I dedicate this to all those who encouraged me to try it, without whose prodding I would not have.]]
Malenkai's reasoning is good enough.Appealer's Comments:
I don't know whether this would uncrash the game, since, as I pointed out in previous posts, lately, all our time has been spent just on saving the game, which could be fun, to some extent. We've been overdoing just about everything.
If this CFJ is sufficient to nullify /dev/joe action, and people decide to go on with the game, I suggest the Speaker announce a festival, a long festival, so people can start figuring out what they want to do.
The only argument presented in favor of the truth of the CFJ statement is that R 558 is in conflict with R 105, and thus is "wholly void and without effect" according to R108. I reject this argument and see no other, so the verdict of true must be overturned.Supreme Court's Comments:
The text of R105 is "[...]If adopted, [a proposed rule change] must guide play in the form in which it was voted on." Surely the only way that a proposed rule change can guide play is to direct a manner or manners in which the rules are to be changed. After those changes have been effected, the proposed rule change has satisfied the requirements of R105.
If R105 is construed to conflict with R558, then it must also forbid the amendment or repeal of existing rules, and perhaps even the transmutation of rules. It is therefore also in conflict with R491, and so R491 (initially immutable rule 103) has been void and without effect since it became mutable on March 22. Rule 103 had sufficient precedence to allow itself to be transmuted, and R108 has always had sufficient precedence over R112 to enforce the "void and without effect"-ness of (mutable) R491. That would be a crash and a half, in that it would mean that the game crashed four months ago and we didn't realize it until now. Of course, it also would mean that "R 558" is not a rule at all, thus supporting the original verdict. So when did we crash?
We concur with the reasoning of Brinjal concerning inconsistency with R104 in CFJ 235.
Call For Judgement 235 - Tue, 16 Jul 1996 08:57 -0400
Subject: Unpermissibility of the Permissibility of the Unprohibited
Judge: Brinjal (selected Jul 14, 1996, 18:26h New York Time)
/dev/joe's action of making rules dormant was illegal, and therefore did not occur.Initiator's Comments:
I am going to make several arguments. The Judge need only agree with one to find a verdict of TRUE, or agree with none, but concur with the statement.Judge's Comments:
/dev/joe used R 558 to make all the rules which were not dormant, dormant. Therefore, to examine the legality of such action, we must first look at R 558, to see how he was granted such power. R 558, first part:> As a special power, entities can be granted the power to make proposals, > rules and CFJs dormant. When dormant, these cannot be voted on, acted > upon or passed judgement on. But rules and proposals can be revoked or > amended as permitted by other rules. Dormant entities have no effect.The key phrase is "entities can be granted the power". Granted the power by whom or what? The rules are silent on the issue. There is no extant game custom, except for the fact that no entity of type player has yet granted this power to anyone. The rule has been around for a while. Can the fact that no player has yet granted the power, support an implicit collective interpretation that no player may grant the power? It can, indicating a verdict of TRUE.
The above is an argument from negative interpretation, one I believe, but one that is difficult to deliver. Its a case of "why state the obvious", and is an important point to make. Lets say all points in rules can be decomposed into many separate forms which can be interpreted as X can do Y, or X cannot do Y, depending on the circumstances defining X and Y. (Even if all rules don't, this one does). The first is a positive interpretation, and is confirmed by the continued accepted allowance of X doing Y. The second is the negative interpreted form, confirmed by the continuance of X not doing Y over a period of time, because of extant interpretation that X cannot do Y. The alternative is to continually state the obvious of X cannot do Y to the public forum. Thats the problem with negative interpretations, there is no, and cannot be, any confirming action.
This ends argument 1, with the claim that R 558's first sentence is of this form.
The next argument assumes no extant interpretation, which means we must try to find one. The rules are silent, and there is no game custom, so all we have is common sense and spirit of the game to determine which entities can grant such power, and whether /dev/joe is one of those entities. Common sense indicates that "another rule" is the proper rendering of what entity can grant the power, but that interpretation cannot be backed up by fact or rule of law. Its just an interpretation, and the Judge can choose another. It seems that we must choose *some* interpretation. What rule of law or game custom gives /dev/joe's any more weight than mine? If the Judge agrees that the proper rendering is "another rule", or CFJ, etc, but not a player, then a verdict of TRUE is necessary. In other words, the Judge just has to interpret that first sentence or R 558. This ends argument 2.
The next argument takes the previous one a step further, and asserts that the interpretation in the above is "indeterminate", leading to a thread split. A multitude of threads spin off from a multitude of possible interpretations. One such thread is based on an interpretation that only Left-Handed Lemons may grant such power in the first sentence. 2 of the more interesting ones are that only rules can, or only rules cannot grant the power. In the one, where only rules can, we have a verdict of TRUE. The other will be explored in argument 4, but suffice it to say, even if it is found FALSE in that thread, which I don't think it will, we can choose which thread to play out, since we don't have the resources to do both. Its like the previous argument, sort of, it comes down to choosing the interpretation you wish to play under, because there is no rule or fact to indicate such. Who is right? This ends argument 3.
The fourth and final argument examines the case in which players may choose to grant themselves this power. What rule explicitly grants such power to a player? Not a single one, with the possible exception of R 115, "Permissibility of the Unprohibited", which says, in part:> "Whatever is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by a rule is > permitted and unregulated ..."So you either buy that no rule grants the player the power, or this one does. Why have this rule in the *initial* ruleset in the first place? To cover the default case, which would exist without it, that you could not do anything that was not explicitly permitted. That is why this rule is needed. The problem is that the rule was dormant (assuming the premise at this point in the argument that it could be used to grant the power in the first sentence of R 588), because Wayne made it dormant.
Therefore we are playing without it, in that harsh world of the Unpermissibility of the Permissibility of the Unprohibited, which prevents a lot of stuff we might do, but also prevented /dev/joe's action, indicating a verdict of TRUE.
Malenkai`s arguments centre on the proposition that Rule 558 is silent on the question of who or what may grant the power to make rules dormant, and that game custom and the dormancy of R115 must be considered in order to decide which entities are and which are not permitted to grant this power.
However, where Rule 558 says that "entities can be granted the power to make proposals,rules and CFJs dormant", it is stating that the granting of such power is a permitted action. There is nothing to suggest that the permission is granted to some entities but not to others. In the form in which it is written, it can only be taken to mean that all entities are granted permission.
An analogous argument might be that the rule is silent on how many rules can be made dormant at a time, that no entity had ever made more than one rule dormant at one time, and that therefore by game custom it is illegal to make more than one rule dormant at a time. This is spurious because there is nothing in the rule to suggest that there is any such limit. Such a game custom must be overridden by the rule in the form in which it is written.
The question of which entities can grant the power of dormancy is not so clearcut as the above, because it is not unreasonable to assume that the intention of the rule was to grant this power specifically to rules and only to rules. But again, this is not what the rule says. There is nothing in the rule itself to suggest any limit on the classes of entities which can grant the power of dormancy. I am thus unable to agree with Malenkai`s arguments.
A further point, which was raised in the public forum, is that R558 conflicts with R104 which says that "proposals made in the proper way shall be voted on". By R558, dormant proposals cannot be voted on. There is certainly a potential conflict here, but is it R558 which conflicts with R104? R558 merely permits the granting of a power, which if used in a particular way, could lead to a conflict. This is a thorny question. If some other rule, under the auspices of R558, granted itself, or even a further rule, the power to make proposals dormant, and that power was used, we would have to decide whether the proposal could be voted on (by R104), or not (it being dormant). Presumably R104 holds sway, but which rule or rules are then, by R108, "void and without effect"? My initial intention was to say that R558 should be considered not guilty, being only an enabling rule, and that only the hypothetical mutable rule which sparked such a conflict would be voided.
However, I then reread R108, which says "Mutable rules that are inconsistent in some way with some immutable rule" shall be void and without effect. "Inconsistent in some way" is such a broad brush with which to tar mutable rules that I can only conclude that R558 falls foul of it. Even if R558 is at one or more removes from the inconsistency, it still cannot escape R108.
I thus conclude that R558, by enabling proposals to be made dormant, and instructing that they cannot be voted on, is inconsistent with R104 and is wholly void and without effect. Thus the statement in the CFJ is TRUE.