Call For Judgement 311 -
Subject: Illegal Chess
Initiator: Niccolo Flychuck
Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected Oct 20, 1996, 10:45h EDT) (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: Robert Sevin (selected Oct 21, 1996, 22:27h EDT) (declined to judge)
3rd Judge: IdiotBoy (selected Oct 21, 1996, 22:36h EDT) (declined to judge)
4th Judge: Brinjal (selected Oct 21, 1996, 23:41h EDT)
Judgement: retracted by author at Tue, 22 Oct 1996 08:35:21 +0200 (EET)
PartyChess move 14 - place bishop at f1 (Brinjal, NAP) - never occured, and neither did any of the events that followed it.Initiator's Comments:
The move was an illegal move.Judge's Comments:
The Chess-Umpire was supposed to declare it illegal.
I claim that the play was illegal, and therefore never took place.
Consequently, all other PartyChess events which followed could also not have taken place.
Call For Judgement 312 - Wed, 06 Nov 1996 23:25:19 -0500
Judge: Bascule (selected Oct 26, 1996, 18:26h EDT) (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: Guy Fawkes (selected Oct 27, 1996, 18:11h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE at Sun, 27 Oct 1996 22:15:58 -0500
Appealed by snowgod at Mon, 28 Oct 1996 01:04:50 -0900 (AKST)
Supreme Court's Judgement: FALSE
snowgod's plan to build the Tower of Bandwidth was approved by the senate.Initiator's Comments:
[none - CotC]Judge's Comments:
Rule 841, which govers towers states in part, "A player is said to be permitted to build (or extend) a Public Tower provided they submit a plan to the Senate, and the Senate votes approval of that plan within 3 days of its submission."Appealer's Comments:
From this, one can infer that the Senate approves a plan to build aPublic Tower if they vote approval of that plan within 3 days of its submission.
I don't know the exact date when the Tower of Bandwidth plan was submitted, but I do know that it was more than three days ago, since it has been at least three days since this CFJ was made public, which was after the Tower's plan being submitted. During that time, the public forum has heard nothing from the Senate regarding the approval or disapproval of the Tower of Bandwidth plan. I see know way in which this absence of communication constitutes approval. Applying the spirit of public knowability, it seems that whatever the Senate's decision (if any) was, it did not occur (has not yet occurred?) within the three days imposed by R 841, and therefore cannot constitute the approval required by that rule.
Note that while the rules state how the Senate is to vote, they are silent as to when the results of that voting are to take effect, which is why is feel justified in invoking the spirit of the game and the "publically knowable" criteria.
Also note that Rule 841 does not require the Senate to vote at all on the submitted plan -- it merely requires their approval _if_ the plan is to be implemented. It leaves open the possibility of their killing the plan simply by not responding for three days, which it what I feel has happened here.
Thus, I judge FALSE.
I am appealing CFJ 312 to the supreme court with no additional reasoning. I only request that a person in the know release the voting results (if any) or at least enlighten the people of ackanomic as to just what goes on behind close doors.Supreme Court's Comments:
The Supreme Court finds the Reasoning of the Original Judge to be sound.
Call For Judgement 313 - Sun, 27 Oct 1996 18:07:34 -0500
Subject: English vs Acka-English
Judge: Bascule (selected Oct 27, 1996, 12:18h EDT)
Using a particular word or phrase in a Rule, Proposal, Newspaper, public post, or other Acka-document that happens to have identical spelling to the name of an Acka-entity does not necessarily constitute a reference to that Acka-entity, or a quoting of the name of that Acka-entity.Initiator's Comments:
Tiring of the "is" newspaper business, and similar situations that may arise in the future, I wish this settled once and for all, if possible :).Judge's Comments:
It seems that a verdict of TRUE is obvious, based on common English usage.
What if I said, "In accordance with R 115 I am buying some bread from the Baker and putting it in my breadbox for safekeeping".
I claim under the conventions of the English language, the usage of the word "breadbox" refers to no player. In fact, one is a common noun, and one is a proper noun. Also, I am not quoting breadbox, the player here.
Similarily, what if a player named "wrote" joined the game. If I said "I wrote CFJ 313", am I referring to the Acka-entity "wrote". No way, different part of speech in this case.
Also, if a newspaper publishes a statement such as "the earth is round", the usage of the verb "is" does not constitute a reference or a quote of any Acka-entity named "is". It cannot, they are different parts of speech!
This occurs in English (and probably other languages, except possibly Greenlandic Inuit, which is really bizzare ;) all the time. If I say, "a library is a place to get books", am I referring to *the library"?
A verdict of TRUE is indicated.
In English, words can have more than one meaning. As no rule states otherwise, I conclude that Acka-words may also have more than one meaning. However, I feel that the specific case of the Newspaper "is" is beyond the scope of this judgement.
Is this a self-referential judgement? The Newspaper "is" has been quoted in the previous paragraph, and in this sentence, and in the next sentence. Does that mean that the CotC is publishing this judgement in the Newspaper "is"? (I don't suppose he bothered to get permission.) I wonder if the (None Yet) party can enlighten me.
Call For Judgement 314 - Mon, 04 Nov 1996 18:07:53 -0500
Subject: "What Do I Have To Lose?" Paradox
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
Judge: mr cwm (selected Oct 29, 1996, 21:39h EST)
As of this writing, the legality of the Brass Monkey climbing the Gaol following the acceptance of 10 consecutive proposals cannot be determined with finality.Initiator's Comments:
If a TRUE verdict is returned, Guy Fawkes claims a win under Rule 219.Judge's Comments:
First, it needs to be noted that CFJ 312 has no bearing on this CFJ. Whether or not the Senate approved the Tower of Bandwidth is irrelevant to this matter -- snowgod has not yet paid for its construction, and so it does not yet exist, regardless of the Senate's approval or lack thereof.
Rule 841 says that all buildings without towers are less than 35 meters high; since no towers currently exist, this means that all buildings in Acka, including the Gaol, are less than 35 meters high.
Rule 824 states that in the event of 10 consecutive accepted proposals, the Brass Monkey shall climb the highest building in Acka. If all buildings in Acka are less than 35 meters high, yet an exact height cannot be determined with finality for any of them. It is possible that the Gaol is the tallest building in Acka -- perhaps it is 34 meters tall while the rest are only 33; on the other hand it is equally possible that some other building is the tallest in Acka, or that are the buildings in Acka are equally tall -- there is no way to determine it with finality.
In this light, the legality of the Brass Monkey climbing the Gaol in these circumstances really cannot be determined with finality.
I find the statement to be empty, though interesting. The Brass Monkey climbing any building is not an "action" whose legality is questionable under R219. It is an event that occurs in accord with the Rules, as the Brass Monkey, being a creation of the Rules, cannot do other than the Rules direct. Even if the Brass Monkey were directed by the Rules to do two contradictory things, the two contradictory events would simply both occur (the Monkey has both climbed and not-climbed the Gaol, for example), since that is what the Rules direct. It is only when our actions depend on knowing that only one of these events has occurred that the question of legality arises. That question, however is one of the legality of our subsequent actions, not one of the legality of the events directed by the Rules.ThinMan's Bronze Torch Comments:
[Note: This decision was strongly influenced by the comments ThinMan posted in a Public Message, and I suggest that, as a Bronze Torch holder, he may wish to add his insightful comments to this decision in accord with R563. Any flaws that may be present in this reasoning, however, are, of course, my own.]
mr cwm's comments are fully in accord with my views on the matter. It is important that we distinguish between "definitive" rule provisions and "regulatory" ones. Provisions specifying entity behavior are only one class of the former, and it is my opinion that the concept of legality is inapplicable any provision of the definitive type. A real-world example is the Law of Gravitation: it is a physical principle that defines certain aspects of how everything with mass behaves -- it is impossible for us violate it.
I think that the legal precedent set by mr cwm's decision is wholly appropriate, and I believe that it is likely to help reduce the number of paradox-win attempts. It is also important to remember, as mr cwm alluded, that even though apparently contradictory entity behavior does not constitute an eligible paradox in itself, it is possible that such behavior will cause an eligible paradox to exist where the legality of player actions depends on entity actions.
Call For Judgement 315 - Wed, 30 Oct 1996 18:55:49 -0500
Subject: Grabbing your Donkey
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
Judge: ThinMan (selected Oct 29, 1996, 21:56h EST)
It is legal to grab one's own donkey.Initiator's Comments:
Personally, I don't care. I think, however, that this should be false. Section B of the GAD rule says "grab _another_ player's donkey on the GAL" is a legal move; it says nothing about grabbing your own.Judge's Comments:
It is legal under R115 to grab one's own donkey. Thus the statement submitted for judgement is true. However, R 1276 is clear:B. Each Round, a player on the GAL will eitherGrabbing one's own donkey is not on that list, and therefore does not constitute a grab-a-donkey move.
(a) Cover their donkey,
(b) Grab another player's donkey on the GAL,
(c) Stand Around Admiring their Donkey,
(d) Resign (this action is only permissible in the first round)
[No other actions specified ...]
Call For Judgement 316 - Sun, 03 Nov 1996 11:37:06 -0500
Subject: Creating Rule Suites
Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected Oct 31, 1996, 01:31h EST)
Proposal 1369 created three new rules, numbered 1369, 1369.1, and 1369.2.Initiator's Comments:
The statement that the rule is to become part of a Rule Suite is a method of assigning that rule a number, and thus the proposal only created one rule that it did not assign a number to, and thus the third paragraph of Rule 642 did not kick in.Judge's Comments:
(If this is false, then rule 1369 just created three rules, numbered 1369.1, 1369.2, and 1369.3, and did not succeed in creating a rule suite, and rule 642 needs to be fixed. There are actually two ways it can be false -- either stating a new rule is to be part of a rule suite does not count as numbering it, or that R642 will still number a rule as X.1 if it is the only rule that a proposal did not specify a number for, but the proposal created other rules.)
I started a very long text as why this is true. I like writing those texts. Then I noticed that my reasoning is essentially the same as /dev/joe's. So I'm just going to agree with him.
Call For Judgement 317 - Sat, 02 Nov 1996 22:03:58 -0500
Subject: Nice try, snowgod
Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected Oct 31, 1996, 13:21h EST)
The Blueprint for "Holy Water" made public on Oct 31, 1996, is in conflict with R 729.Initiator's Comments:
The Blueprint seems to imply that "Enlighenment" is an attribute that is conferred to a player upon a particular event occurring, much like receiving points or the title of Belt Holder, and as such, is detached from the actual event that conferred it. Therefore, so the Blueprint's rationale goes, it can be removed, much as points or the title of Belt Holder could be.Judge's Comments:
In the case of R 729, however, I am going to argue that Enlighenment is a condition held in force continiously by rule, and is *not* detached from the rule-based condition that holds it in sway, and thus the action of the blueprint that claims to remove Enlightenment is in conflict with R 729.
From R 729:> Any player who has been burned as a heretic exactly once is considered > EnlightenedThis rule does not confer an attribute or title of Enlightenment, it continiously says, as long as the condition remains true, that the player is Enlighened. Thus, by rule, a player who has been burned exactly once as a heretic (and as long as this truth remains so) has this condition of Enlightenment continuosly imposed upon them by the rules, whether they want it or not.
The Blueprint in question does not remove this condition, therefore its attempt to remove the resultant Enlightenment is in conflict with R 729.
Were rule 729 worded> Upon being burned as a heretic for the first time, the player is > conferred the title of Enlightened One.the Blueprint would not be in conflict (on this count, anyway). It is a fine distinction, and I ask the judge to consider it.
I note on a verdict of TRUE, the Blueprint and all Gadgets made from it are destroyed in accordance with R 594.
Malenkai put this well. There is a distinction in as much that other rules make the distinction. Players are "made" enlightened, not "given".
Call For Judgement 318 - Fri, 01 Nov 1996 09:43:25 -0500
Subject: Another paradox CFJ
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
Judge: ThinMan (selected Oct 31, 1996, 22:44h EST)
If a Witchhunt is legally called against a player, and in the ensuing voting, equal numbers of "No! E said the Earth is flat" and "BURN THE WITCH!" votes are cast, the legality of burning the alleged Heretic cannot be determined with finality.Initiator's Comments:
In the miraculous event that this CFJ escapes the fate of the rest of Guy Fawkes' paradox win attempts and is judged TRUE, the initator claims a win under Rule 219.Judge's Comments:
From Rule 792:"After the Witchhunt is over, a simple majority (50% or more) will determine whether or not the alleged Heretic has been burned."
This is a most odd way of defining a simple majority. In a 50-50 split, two simple majorities exist -- one determining that he has been burned, and one determining that he has not been burned.
And for the quantum physicists out there, the wording of the rule "whether or not the alleged Heretic has been burned" does not admit to the possibility of him being both burned and not burned.
And so, the legality of burning this heretic cannot be determined with finality.
After due consideration, this judge agrees that whether or not the player is burned under the circumstances in question is indeterminate. This stems from an abnormal definition of "simple majority" in R 729.
However, burning the witch is, oddly enough, not a defined Ackanomic action. It is paricularly not defined as an action performed by any player or players, though that is actually beside the point. Instead, the rules define a player state of either having been burned or not having been burned. (Or having been burned multiple times....)
If burning witches (or other players) is otherwise not a defined Ackanomic action, then its permissability under any particular circumstances can be determined with finality by reference to rules 115, 592, and possibly others. The CFJ statement is therefore FALSE.
I also considered ruling this CFJ INVALID based on the non-action nature of witch burning, because this CFJ is therefore not actually a paradox-win CFJ by my reading of R 219. Upon reflection, however, the judgement actually rendered seemed more reasonable to me.
I note also that according to Malenkai's records, the initiator of this CFJ currently has the Charteuse Goose, and therefore would not win even if this CFJ were judged TRUE.
Call For Judgement 319 - Fri, 08 Nov 1996 20:58:26 -0500
Subject: Tower of Confusion
Judge: IdiotBoy (selected Nov 07, 1996, 09:00h EDT)
snowgod's Tower of Bandwidth was built.Initiator's Comments:
As of the time CFJ 312's statement was filed, and hence the time the verdict retroactively applies to, the Tower of Bandwidth had not been approved by the senate. That does not necessarily mean that the Tower was never approved. In fact, a Senator did announce the Tower was approved after CFJ 312 was filed. The point of this rambling is that it is possible for CFJ 312 to have been judged FALSE, and the Tower to have been approved.Judge's Comments:
The preceeding two sentences, obviously, do not assure that the Tower was actually approved. There is still considerable doubt about this in the public forum, and thus a CFJ is indicated, even if the verdict is obvious. The truth be known, I simply enjoy CFJs and reading people's judgements of them.
If the Tower was ever approved, it was built by snowgod. Otherwise, its off to the Gaol again :)
The is a great deal of confusion as to whether the Senate has actually approved this Tower, breadbox's message notwithstanding. there is no easy way for the average player to have insight into the workings of the Senate. Going on the information currently on hand and a simple reading of the rules, it would appear that the Senate has approved the construction of snowgod's Tower of Bandwidth, and snowgod did, in fact, build said Tower.
Call For Judgement 320 - Wed, 20 Nov 1996 19:38:21 -0500
Subject: Dilocation of the Little Lamb
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
Judge: IdiotBoy (selected Nov 10, 1996, 00:37h EDT) (left the game)
2nd Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected Nov 12, 1996, 00:43h EST)
More than one player may possess the Little Lamb simultaneously.Initiator's Comments:
From Rule 1046, which governs the Little Lamb: "Any player may claimpossession of the Little Lamb, which will remain in effect until another player claims possession of the Little Lamb, or for one week, whichever is longer." Let's say that Player A claims possession of the Little Lamb, then four days later Player B does. This clause guarantees that Player A's claim will remain in effect for at least one week, but this does not preclude the effectiveness of Player B's claim. Indeed, Player B has claimed possession of the Little Lamb, and according to Rule 1046, this claim will remain in effect for at least one week.Judge's Comments:
Note that this is one of those cases where possession and ownership are very different. No one _owns_ the Little Lamb -- I believe it possible that many players might possess it.
My first instinct was to judge this false. Surely possesion was just as exclusive as ownership. But then I looked through the rules, and found the term posses, possesion, etc. were used many times, they were never defined. Game custom might have suggested that possesion is exclusive. However, game custom only has effect when the rules are completely silent on an issue. This rule is far from silent on this issue, it explicitly defines the terms of possesion of the Little Lamb, and the terms are as Guy Fawkes has interpreted them to be.
Call For Judgement 321 - Thu, 21 Nov 1996 18:17:26 -0500
Subject: Whamiol Treasure
Judge: IdiotBoy (selected Nov 10, 1996, 00:43h EDT) (left the game)
2nd Judge: fnord (selected Nov 12, 1996, 00:45h EST)
As of the time of this posting, snowgod buried a Treasure that consists of a Whamiol.Initiator's Comments:
This looks like a strict/loose constructionalist sort of thing. A verdict of FALSE means that Habeous Corpus has his Whamiol back, a verdict of TRUE means it is buried Treasure. I quote snowgod's post:Judge's Comments:> I am burying my Whamiol and creating the following treasure map: > > For to see his Whamiol again, > and hold it near his score, > Habeous Corpus must transfer some cash, > A$500 to be exact, > to snowgod, the would be extortionist. > > Do this and the Whamiols is buried no more.Note that this has nothing to do with the discussion between myself and Guy Fawkes as to whether the map posted must be genuine if it is in fact deemed to be a Treasure.
Normally, I would be a strict constructionalist on this kind of thing. The Rules state that in order to bury Treasure, the player should "publically announce that they are doing so, and state what the Treasure consists of."
In snowgod's statement, quoted previously, he merely states that he is burying the Whamiol and that he is creating a Treasure Map. According to a strinct interpretation Rules, this is not enough. He never stated that the Whamiol is a Treasure, nor that he buried that specific Treasure.
However, there is game custom and precedence in existence to show that you do not necessarily have to describe the entity as a Treasure and then state that you are burying the Treasure. Look at Treasure #104 listed on Malenkai's (very handy) Buried Treasure Archive (http://www.itw.com/~malenkai/ackabta.htm). It is another instance of snowgod burying a treasure, but not by explicitly stating that his I Palindrome I forehead was a Treasure and that that was the Treasure he was burying. No one complained at that time that he hadn't followed the Rule for burying treasure.
It is this, along with the way Malenkai phrased his original Statement (in the positive instead of the negative), that lead me to a Judgement of TRUE.
Call For Judgement 322 -
Subject: Otzma Auction
Judge: Robert Sevin (selected Nov 21, 1996, 08:30h EST)
Judgement: retracted by initiator
At the time of this post, 3 Go Fish Otzma cards were being auctioned in a single auction.Initiator's Comments:
The other interpretation is that there are 3 seperate auctions each containing one card each. As the auction was called in one post with 3 identical things, I would favor the interpretation of R 1023 in the CFJ's statement. On the other hand, each has a different id, so ...Judge's Comments:
Since id has no effect on the game state, I would argue that they are identical, and thus are being auctioned in a single, multi-unit, auction.
In any case, hopefully this CFJ can be wrapped up quickly, before the auction ends.
The RuneMaker's post calling the auction is produced below. Note the use of the terms "a public Auction" and "the Auction". Of course, "public" is incorrect, so just because it is written a particular way does not make it correct.> I have created three Otzma Cards so far, they are all of type Go Fish > I am also anouncing the begining of a public Auction for the following > Cards > OCID 101 Go Fish > OCID 102 Go Fish > OCID 103 Go Fish > Since the date in the ackanomic time zone is even, I shall be conducting > the Auction.
Call For Judgement 323 -
Subject: Vote YES for Proposal 1500
Judge: breadbox (selected Dec 10, 1996, 18:15h EST)
Judgement: retracted by initiator
Malenkai will win the current cycle.Initiator's Comments:
I find the trying to hit the Magic Number exactly a little silly. The sooner we end the cycle, the sooner we will get an Archaeologist :)
Call For Judgement 324 - Sat, 14 Dec 1996 02:14:32 -0500
Subject: The Hubert Legacy and Treasure Hunt
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
Judge: Malenkai (selected Dec 13, 1996, 09:24h EST)
Guy Fawkes was the first player to fulfill the requirements of the Treasure Map for Treasure 111.Initiator's Comments:
Guy Fawkes' initial timestamp is a minute before /dev/joe's. wilma sent off /dev/joe's "Hubert" message three or four minutes before Guy Fawkes'. I have no crushing need to possess the Secret Decoder Ring at all costs, but it is of moderate importance to know. You figure it out.Judge's Comments:
Kelly Martin once said that the overwhelming majority of nomic CFJs are based on Rule of Law (that is to say, the facts are not disputed, but the law (and its interpretation) is), as opposed to Rule of Fact (the reverse). Moreover, she observed that the nomic justice system was unusual in that the burden of proof generally rested on the judge, as opposed to the adversarial system generally employed in the western (and perhaps other) systems of law. I was looking at what appeared to be a Rule of Fact CFJ, and looking at doing alot of research into the actual facts in this case.
My first thought was to judge INVALID, as Ackanomic's justice system only explicity permits Rule of Law CFJs. I quote from R 589:> Any active player who has a question or complaint about any matter > concerning the laws and their interpretation may email their statement > to the Clerk of the Court, who will then distribute it to the rest of > the Players. A call for judgement is then incurred on that statement.Although that appeared to be the correct verdict, there were several things that nagged me:
a) I found this case interesting as h**l
b) Rule of Law probably applied, as it always does
c) The questions of 'what does publically knowable mean?' and 'when to Acka events actually occur?' still needed to be addressed, and this seemed as good a time as any.
Resolving 'When do Acka events occur?' seemed important. The choices seemed to be (assuming it was a public message):
a) as indicated on the timestamp of the original post
b) when the post hit the majordomo server at wilma
c) when the post was in the hands of all players
This question is not regulated, therefore we have to rely on game custom, and, remembering the Tabulator reverse e-mail situation and other game situations, game custom indicates a) as when acka events occur. The problem with b) is that a public message can legally be sent without going to wilma, and the problem with c) is 'what if someone's mail server is on the fritz (e.g. Bascule)?' or 'what if some people are subscribed to acka-digeset?'. Need we wait for them? Acka events then, are publically knowable as of the send timestamp on a public message.
What about the facts? When did the actual posts occur relative to the time in New York City, and was there really almost 4 minutes of network delay at midnight between U of I and UT-Austin? I started doing the same reasearch that others did (but others figured out the facts of the time descrepency for me anyway, before I was done myself (my boss had work for me today :() when I realised those facts really did not matter for *this* case.
I quote from R 901:> If possible, all players must configure their e-mail software to > correctly report the current time for the time zone specified. > Otherwise, they must make public notification of what corrections > need to be applied to compensate for erroneous time stamps indicated > on their posts. All posts are deemed to have occurred at the corrected > time, if the time stamp of a post is erroneous.Neither /dev/joe, Guy Fawkes, nor ThinMan indicated any corrections to be applied to the time stamps on their posts. I have no choice but to assume they are following the rules and the 'Otherwise' clause was not applicable (as they did not invoke it), and the time stamps are correct. It is possible that they were incorrect, and they were committing a crime by not posting the correction or reconfiguring their e-mail software per R 901, but that is not the question I have been asked to judge here.
I thus find that Guy Fawkes was the first to post 'Hubert' without explanation on the day in question, based on the assumed correctness of the header of his post, and in doing so fullfilled the treasure map for treasure 111.
I do note that the parties involved *have* posted corrections to be applied to their timestamps, but these corrections have been posted after the CFJ was called. That is unfortuanate, as Judgement must be rendered based on the rules and game state in effect at the time judgement was called; these corrections were posted afterwords, and there is no reason to allow that they apply retroactively to the time the CFJ was filed. How can we know, for example, that the system clocks in question were not changed between the time in question and the time the research was done and the corrections posted?
As much as I would like to judge this case FALSE, based on the facts that have come to light since judgement was called, I cannot ignore the rules, which I find clear (215, 901). Although these rules may be bad to some extent, they are clear.
In some cases, we are talking about mere minutes and seconds. Surely game custom and spirit of the game will allow these small times to slide. But where do you draw the line? 1 second? 10 minutes? 1 hour? I cannot presume to play dictator and make that call, I can only follow the rules in front of me, and have no choice. If we wish to design ackanomic to be a real-time game, we should enforce the synchronicity of the various players, or modify the rules to handle these sort of situations as indented.
I note that the Secret Decoder Ring is a gift entity, and that Guy Fawkes may give it to /dev/joe, or anyone else, if he feels that is appropriate.
The statement I was asked to judge is TRUE based on the facts and rule of law in force at the time.
Call For Judgement 325 - Mon, 30 Dec 1996 08:46:15 -0500
Subject: Trinket Paradox
Initiator: Calvin N Hobbes
Judge: snowgod (selected Dec 23, 1996, 12:24h EST)
Trinket creation (R506/2) and donation to the treasury (R505/8 part VI) causes a paradox since this creates Ackadollars when that number should be constant (R505/8 Part III).Initiator's Comments:
From Rule 505/8 (Treasury and AckaDollars), part III, "Hard Currency", thefollowing two things to note. First that it is not allowed to create Ackadollars and second that their total number is to be $75000. Therefore it must be that there should be always A$75000 in Ackanomic.Judge's Comments:
I quote:>III. Hard Currency: > > AckaDollars may not be created nor destroyed. This Rule >has precedence over any Rule that would create or destroy A$. > [...] The total number of A$ shall always be 75,000.Let us consider also, from Rule 505/8, part VI, "Donation", the following:> VI. Donation: > A player may donate any non-mimsy Tradeable or gift entity >they own to the Treasury by publically announcing they are >doing so. If the item is a Trinket, it is converted into its value in >A$ upon transferrence to the Treasury.The result of the action is that when a trinket is donated to the Treasury, it is converted into its value in Ackadollars, as the rule says. In other words, it is the value in Ackadollars that is donated to the Treasury, not the Trinket itself.
In Rule 506/2, "Trinkets", second paragraph:> A player may create a Trinket by publically announcing its >name, description, and value, and by paying its announced >value to the Treasury.As an example, let us presume that we create a trinket worth A$1, and that this action is legal (it would require only that we have A$1 in our account). Then, the treasury is given this A$1 from the account, as per R506/2. Now if we donate this trinket to the treasury as per R505/8, its value, A$1 is donated to the treasury. While our account has gone down by A$1, the treasury now has A$2 more than before: one from our account, one from the trinket donation -- A$1 has been created.
Since Ackadollars cannot be created, but we have just done so... Paradox, and paradox win in accordance with R219 as defined in R219 if ruled TRUE.
The initiator's reasoning is valid, but only to a point. It seems clear that R505/8 (Section VI) does indeed cause the creation of A$ in excess of the A$75,000 limit (Section III). Though this previously would have constituted a paradox, R210 is now quite clear on this matter:If two statements in the same rule conflict with each other, and the rule doesn't define a way to resolve the conflict, then the statement which appears later in the rule takes precedence.This is the case in this 'paradox' so I am returning a judgement of FALSE on the matter of CFJ 325.