Call For Judgement 296 - Sat, 28 Sep 1996 12:46:52 -0400
Subject: Game Effect of a FALSE CFJ
1st Judge: snowgod (selected Sep 20, 1996, 22:56h EDT) (failed to deliver verdict)
2nd Judge: Robin Hood (selected Sep 28, 1996, 03:05h EDT)
The game effect of returning a verdict of FALSE on a Call for Justice can not be determined with finality.Initiator's Comments:
Rule 214 lays out four possible Judgements which a Judge may return on a CFJ. These are (1) True, (2) False, (3) Undecided, or (4) Invalid. Any accompanying reasoning or discussion of effects is NOT part of the Judgement.Judge's Comments:
Rule 216 gives us a description of the game effect of returning a verdict of TRUE on a CFJ. That decision does not become part of the Ruleset, but serves to explicitly define game custom. No such consideration is made of the return of a FALSE verdict on a CFJ, therefore the effect of such a verdict can not be known.
Since the rules do not explicitly specify the effects of a false verdict the final sentence of 215 applies.
The custom is that all judical reasoning are game custom following the precedent set by 216.
Call For Judgement 297 - Tue, 08 Oct 1996 22:19:51 -0400
Subject: Paradox of winning by Paradox
Judge: Techno (selected Sep 22, 1996, 10:17h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE at Mon, 23 Sep 1996 01:35:55 -0400
Appealed by Malenkai at Tue, 24 Sep 1996 00:47:37 -0400
Supreme Court's Judgement: FALSE
It can not be determined with finality whether it is possible to win by paradox.Initiator's Comments:
Rule 215 gives judges the power to use game custom to make a decision when the Rules are "silent, inconsistent, or unclear" on a statement in question. Inconsistent must be construed as to mean that the Rules could be interpreted to both allow and disallow an action or interpretation. This would give Judges the power to resolve questions where a statement or action is equally legal and illegal.Judge's Comments:
Rule 219 states that if "some action appears equally legal and illegal" then the player may call for Judgement on the action. If the Judgement is returned TRUE than the player is declared the winner.
The Rules state that Judges are required to use game custom to resolve potential paradoxes (inconsistencies) and also that Judges are to return a verdict which declares a paradox to exist. The proper course for a Judge can not be determined.
[none]Supreme Court's Comments:
Rule 219 contains an explicit procedure whereby a player can win by paradox, and this has happened in the past. Therefore it can be determined with finality whether or not it is possible to win by paradox.Penalty for the original judge:
Regarding the passage from Rule 215:
"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 Supreme Court disagrees with the initiator's belief that this phrase "must be construed as to mean that the Rules could be interpreted to both allow and disallow an action or interpretation." For instance, at one time there were many references within the rules to "the official currency of Ackanomic", while other rules referred to Ackadollars. This could be described as an inconsistency, without the existence of a paradox.
Call For Judgement 298 - Sat, 28 Sep 1996 12:49:06 -0400
Subject: Holy Rule-Breakers
Judge: breadbox (selected Sep 22, 1996, 17:18h EDT)
A member of a Church may, indeed must, ignore any provision of that Church's policy which would require him or her to break the Rules.Initiator's Comments:
R 775, Mutable, section 3, c:Judge's Comments:> c. All Church members must abide by Church Policy as long as they > are members of the Church.R 101, Immutable:> All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the > form in which they are then in effect, and interpreted in accordance > with currently existing game custom. [...]R 101 requires players always follow the rules. It certainly has precedence, if it doesn't outright neuter R 775 entirely via R 108.
If there is a R 108 style neutering of R 775, and I'm to tired to explore that side of it now, then clearly Churches and Church Policy would fall under the auspices of R 115, thus it is obvious that such policies, regardless of what they required a player to do, would hold no sway whatsoever over the player's actions, thus, by R 101, that player would be mandated to ignore any which required rule-breaking behaviour.
Even if R 775 is not wholly void and without effect, it seems to me that R 775, 3c is too weak to require a player to break R 101, even if the Church Policy mandates such. Therefore the player can ignore such illegal-behaviour-forcing provisions, and a verdict of TRUE is indicated.
A verdict of TRUE here should also indicate a verdict of FALSE on CFJ 288. I will attempt to demonstrate how later. I wish I had the time to do this when CFJ 288 was filed, alas, I did not, but I cannot let it pass now.
I see two ways of interpreting the sentence from Rule 775 under scrutiny: "All Church members must abide by Church Policy as long as they are members of the Church."
One reading is that abiding by Church Policy is simply a necessary condition to being a member of the church. To not abide by church policy is to implicitly renounce one's membership.
Under such a reading, the truth of the CFJ's statement is trivially true.
The second interpretation is that Rule 775 actually gives a church policy the force of Rules, as far as the church's members are concerned. Church policy would then, while not actually being rules, would have essentially the same force and importance. A player who did not abide by church policy could then be liable for a CFCJ, for not obeying Rule 775.
If we were to prefer this interpretation, and give church policy equal standing with the official rule set, then a policy that required an action forbidden by the rules would in effect be requiring the church member(s) to not obey the rules. As such, it would certainly be in conflict with Rule 101. Whether Rule 108 or Rule 210 would come into play first is immaterial; the precedence of Rule 101, as it stands, affords no escape. If church policy is seen as equivalent to rules, then it must also abide by the rules as well, and the statement of this CFJ is still clearly True. Indeed, it seems that no matter how much hand-waving is applied, Rule 101 demands that this statement be considered True, no matter what sort of extenuating circumstances are applied.
But not so fast. There is an obvious counterargument here. Rule 101 demands that the rules be obeyed, but which rules? Given this latter interpretation, would not the entire church policy of every church have a precedence equivalent to Rule 775, 3c? Therefore, would not rules which would defer to Rule 775 also have to defer to church policy, as far as its members were concerned? For that matter, could not a church create a policy which explicity claimed precedence over other mutable rules?
If we wished to take our interpretation this far, then consider the following. The *only* restriction on the scope of church policy is that it cannot prevent a member from leaving. If the church policy were a living document, subject to change without notice, members could find themselves effectively breaking a "rule" that they had never voted for. Indeed, they could be made to violate church policy before such policy was knowable by them, much less before they could respond by leaving the church. Furthermore, if a CFCJ was brought forth upon a player (for violating church policy, and therefore not obeying Rule 775), a judge could potentially find eirself in an uncomfortable situation. Since the church would be under no compulsion whatsoever to disclose church policy, in whole or in part, it is quite likely that it would be impossible to return a judgement.
There is none of the necessary structure, and little even in the way of precedence, for Ackanomic to uphold rules that exist outside of the Rule Set. I must maintain that any such document must necessarily give all precedence to the actual Rules themselves. To be otherwise, a Rule would have to explicitly state that the external material should be considered to be the text of the Rule, and (for good measure) explicity state that the Rule was whatever the external material read as At Any Given Moment.
With anything less, I cannot find that an independent document such as church policy can bestow freedom from the rules, even from a small subset of the rules to a small subset of the population. The statement of this CFJ is, therefore, under all interpretations, True.
Call For Judgement 299 - Tue, 08 Oct 1996 22:14:39 -0400
Subject: Personally Glorious Paradox
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected Sep 24, 1996, 23:28h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE at Thu, 26 Sep 1996 15:42:37 -0400
Appealed by ThinMan at Thu, 26 Sep 1996 17:03:32 -0400
Supreme Court's Judgement: FALSE
The legality of omitting a rule's originator's name from the official copy of the official rules, if that rule was created before Rule 682 and the originator is unknown, cannot be determined with finality.Initiator's Comments:
If this CFJ receives a final verdict of TRUE, Guy Fawkes will win the cycle in accordance with R219.Judge's Comments:
Rule 682 -- "For Personal Glory..." (excerpts)
"a) The official copy of the official rules should include with the text of each rule the name of the originator of the rule and the date the rule was enacted.
a)1) The originator's name should appear just below the title of the proposal and before the text of the proposal.
c) The requirements in (a) and (c) do not have to apply to rules created before the enactment of this rule if such data is not known."
To properly understand this, we must examine the meaning of "do not have to apply." IMO, it means that under those circumstances, the requirements are *optional* -- it is legal to follow them; it is also legal to ignore them. This is not a paradox by itself. Instead of one action being legal and illegal, it merely creates a situation where two opposite actions are both legal.
However, section c) is self-referential -- The requirements in (a) and (c) do not have to apply to rules created before...
Therefore, if the conditions and of being created befre R682 and being of unknown originator are true, sections (a) and (c) are optional.
There is no problem with (a) being optional.
If (c), however, is optional, a paradox arises. It becomes legal for the requirements of (a) to be relaxed, which is the case of the option of (c) being in effect; it is equally legal for the requirements of (a) to be enforced, which is the case of the of (c) not being in effect -- in this case, it is illegal to omit the originator's name.
Thus, (c)'s optional nature causes two equally valid game-states to exist; one in which the originator's name on an early rule where it is unknown must be included anyway, and one in which the originator's name may be omitted in such circumstances -- one in which the omission is illegal and one in which it is legal.
The reasoning by Guy Fawkes is well explained. By making both (a) and itself optional, (c), the claim is that on the "recursive layer" (if we can call it that) then (a) is made a requirement again and thus there are two paths, one legal, and one illegal.Appealer's Comments:
R219/1 specifies that a paradox occurs when "the legality of some action cannot be determined with finality". Finality there is not. It would seem there is a typo in 682 and that in (c), it was going to be (a) and (b), not (a) and (c) that should have been "excluded". This simple correction has been sent.
The question of the existence of a paradox in R682 depends upon whether or not section (c) claims to abridge its own authority. I will attempt to demonstrate that it does not.Supreme Court's Comments:
First, however, I point out that Rule 105 requires that rules guide play in the form in which they were distributed for voting. It is this provision that makes the paradox claim in question be at all feasible -- without such a provision we would be free to ignore the typographical error and interpret R 682 in the way it was intended.
That being the case, it is appropriate that I ask the Court to scrutinize the language of R 682. Section (c) says that in some circumstances the _requirements_ of section (c) do not have to apply. Although Sections (a) and (b) both place requirements on the text of the official copy of the rules, section (c) makes no requirements whatsoever -- rather, it makes allowances. As only the requirements of section (c) "do not have to apply," and there are no such requirements, there is also, therefore, no paradox.
I also bring to the Court's attention CFJ 240, the reasoning of which established implicit game custom, which has since been adhered to by the Court, that an interpretation of the Rules which does not produce a paradox is preferrable to an otherwise similarly reasonable one that does.
The Supreme Court finds the Reasoning of ThinMan to be sound.Penalty:
One point from the original Judge.
Call For Judgement 300 - Tue, 01 Oct 1996 19:53:10 -0400
Subject: Going to Gaol
1st Judge: this is not a name (selected Sep 28, 1996, 00:04h EDT) (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: Malenkai (declined)
3rd Judge: Uncle Sam (selected Sep 28, 1996, 03:01h EDT)
IdiotBoy went to Gaol on Thursday September 26th.Initiator's Comments:
There is a three day grace period from time of sentence to actual Gaoling of offenders. IdiotBoy was in the Cow Town Hotel at the moment his three days elapsed. Shortly after this he left the Cow Town Hotel and I, as Gaoler, attempted to put IdiotBoy behind bars. Rule 710 "Criminal Justice", describes the process of Gaoling criminals, and it is the interpretation of this rule which the judge must consider.Judge's Comments:
7a)"Upon a verdict of TRUE, the judge may retain or alter the recommended penalty. The result will become the actual penalty. This will be imposed following a 3 day "grace period". This takes precedence over all other mutable rules which establish or dis-establish a grace period."
A verdict of TRUE was passed against IdiotBoy in CFCJ 115 at 1:39 on the 23 Sept. Thus, his grace period ended at 1:39 on the 26th of Sept. and his Sentence began.
7b) If the penalty was a SENTENCE in the Gaol, player X shall be moved from their current Location to the Gaol at the end of the grace period, at which time their sentence will start.
This is the only place in the rule set that specifies how a player is moved to the Gaol "at the end of the grace period." Since IdiotBoy was residing in the Cow Town Hotel at this moment he was unable to be placed in the Gaol according to rule 1067. The rules specify nothing about a criminal being moved to the Gaol at any other time, only at the end of the grace period.
According to rule 712 the Gaoler has no authority to place Ackacitizens in the Gaol. The Gaoler only has the authority to release players from the gaol. So the Gaoler made an unsuccessful attempt to place IdiotBoy in the Gaol and most likely broke the rules in doing so.
Call For Judgement 301 - Fri, 18 Oct 1996 20:41:21 -0400
Subject: Newspaper selling
Judge: breadbox (selected Sep 30, 1996, 15:40h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE at Wed, 09 Oct 1996 12:54:28 -0400
Appealed by IdiotBoy at Wed, 09 Oct 1996 18:28:13 -0400
Supreme Court's Judgement: TRUE
It is not possible for a player to sell a newspaper, without permission, which is not published by his own newspaper.Initiator's Comments:
R891 regulates the production of newspapers. The third paragraph states that:Judge's Comments:
News articles may be posted by the owner of a newspaper, quoting the name of the newspaper in the article. Such an article is said to have been published in that newspaper.
Given the result of CFCJ 115, "posting" must be taken to include sending out a newspaper by means of private email. If it were not so, IdiotBoy would have been found innocent, for he never posted a newspaper article to the public forum, preferring to distrubte by means of subscription.
R891, paragraph 4 states:
No player may publish articles in a paper she does not own without the express permission of the owner.
This may be taken to mean that the recipient of a newspaper does not have the right to redistribute a newspaper which she receives, by any means. The mere act of posting (sending via email) a copy of a newspaper is considered publishing. Resending another's newpaper is publishing that newspaper. A clear violation of the rules, if express permission is not given.
When taken in context, it is clear that the intention of paragraph 4 in Rule 891 was to prevent citizens from misrepresenting a newspaper by posting articles that falsely claimed to be printed in a paper that they did not own. The question before the court is then whether this can be construed to prohibit duplication, in any form, of a newspaper or articles that appeared in it.Appealer's Comments:
I do not believe that to be the case. Specifically, I claim that a private message shared between two parties, as opposed to a message submitted to a public forum, cannot be considered an act of publishing. The fact that one party may be paid for sending such a message is not germane.
This judge does not feel that Ackanomia has any business in restricting the private activies of its citizens.
I must note that by this logic, Idiotboy's "Hot Tips Newsletter" is a private activity (albeit advertised in a most public fashion), and should be not considered to be a newspaper.
I wish to appeal this on the basis that the Hot Tips Newsletter has already been deemed a newspaper. (CFCJ 115) (Although I like the judicial activism on breadbox's part.)Supreme Court's Comments:
News articles are protected entities. The act of mailing a news article is also an act of publishing it, as established by CFCJ 115. Publishing a news article is not permitted without the express permission of the owner. Additionally, news articles are not tradeable.Penalty:
Call For Judgement 302 - Thu, 03 Oct 1996 22:34:05 -0400
Subject: Interpreting R 1269
Initiator: Niccolo Flychuck
Judge: IdiotBoy (selected Oct 02, 1996, 20:19h EDT)
Tuesday Oct.1 was the first Tuesday when Swinger received points according to R1269 "Newton, Apples, and Parties"Initiator's Comments:
This is simply something I'd like to have resolved. I can reason this either with or without the self-deleting text.Judge's Comments:
First, with the self-deleting text in the proposal:
This is what the self-deleting text states.
The rule states that every two weeks on Tuesday, Swingers will be awarded points. Therefore, whenever Tuesday occurs, and points have not been given, in accordance with this rule, for two weeks, this must be the Tuesday on which points are given.
(this has nothing to do with the fact that no points were actually given. All Swingers had zero Weight, and points are given only for Swingers with non-zero Weights. This was the boundary condition that R1116 did not take into consideration, and which caused what was probably the worst bug in it - real incentive to leave the King off-board.)
Either with or without the self deleting text, I can see no reason why Tuesday, October 1st could not be the first date on which Swingers recieved their rewards.
Given that if I were to return a verdict of FALSE, the matter would still be much in dispute (forgive my hyperbole, I'm building up the the big judicial activism push), I return a verdict of TRUE.
Call For Judgement 303 - Thu, 10 Oct 1996 20:39:30 -04000
Subject: Wrangled up in Donkey Business
Judge: this is not a name (selected Oct 3, 1996, 18:30h EDT) (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: Robin Hood (selected Oct 4, 1996, 01:53h EDT) (failed to respond)
3rd Judge: Wayne (selected Oct 7, 1996, 01:57h EDT) (failed to rrespond)
4th Judge: Guy Fawkes (selected Oct 10, 1996, 02:12h EDT)
If, in a single round of the game of Grab-a-Donkey, both player A and player C grab player B's donkey (A, B, and C distinct), and player B is on the Grab-a-Donkey Active List (GAL), player B will retain their donkey (and thus remain on the GAL).Initiator's Comments:
First of all, clause D of R 1276 will not kick in, as its "if clause" is false in this situation.Judge's Comments:
I don't really have a strong case for TRUE here, but I do have *a* case.
R 1276, clause C:> C. If one player ("A") chose to Grab another player's donkey ("B"), and > if B did not Cover eir donkey, then B will lose eir donkey and be removed > from the GAL at the start of the following Round.This hinges on the rendering of the word "one", and its scope. If the word "one" is scoped for an entire round, TRUE is indicated, otherwise FALSE is. In this case, 2 players attempted to grab B's donkey in a given round, therefore, clause C never fires, thus the grabbing actions have no effect whatsoever, because nothing else is specified in the rules to handle this case. Note that whether or not B covered their donkey matters not in this reading.
Lets look at the FALSE case, and see if the judge has any comments on this interpretation, if FALSE is returned:
If B covered their donkey, then A thru Z can grab it and nothing will happen. If B did not cover their donkey, then B loses it, and is removed from the GAL next turn, the only question is, who gets the donkey?
I can see an argument for whoever grabbed it first, or whoever grabbed it last. I can also see an argument for *both* getting it, but that case is weak. My reading indicates the *last* player to grab it gets it, in this multiple grab senerio.
This is just one of the areas that must be cleaned up in the rewrite. There are others, I'll leave those to other players to discover (in some cases they've been discovered), and other CFJs
First, I'd like to re-state the game custom that has existed since CFJ 101 and been confirmed several times since then, that in situations such as this, the word "one" is semantically equivalent to "exactly one" rather than "at least one."
That accomplished, the ambiguity mentioned by Malenkai still exists. Rule 1276 fails to mention, at least in the quoted passage, whether the "one" carries a scope of an entire round, of any instant during a round, or even the entire game.
I hereby invoke the Spirit of the Game, similar to as was done in CFJ 240, to state that given multiple equally plausible interpretations of a rule, even if none of the interpretations produce a paradox, an interpretation that does not result in internal contradictions of the rule is preferable to one that does.
That done, the scope of the entire game can be ruled out. The rules require that the player of a donkey grabbed exactly once (whatever that means) be removed from the GAL at the beginning of the next round. As it is impossible to know whether or not the donkey shall be grabbed again at the time the determination of whether or not it was grabbed exactly once must be made, the whole-game scope in inconsistent with the rest of the rules.
To determine a preference between the instant-in-time and whole-Round cases, I direct attention to R1276, section B.
Each Round, a player on the GAL will either (a) Cover eir donkey, (b) Grab a specific player's donkey on the GAL, or (c) Stand Around Admiring Eir Donkey. Unless a player specifies a different choice to the Wrangler in a private message by the end of the Round, the player will Stand Around Admiring Eir Donkey. Rounds will last no less than one full day (24 hours) and no more than 3 full days (72 hours) from the start of the game. Players may change eir action at any time before the end of the Round.
The rule is very clear that a player may only take exactly one action per turn, although that action is fluid and may be altered before the Round's end. The full-Round scope of "one" preserves this, while the instant-in-time contradicts this. Say, for example, Player A grabs player B's donkey (B not covering), then changes his mind and decides instead to grab player C's donkey. Under the instant-in-time approach, there was a time when Player A chose to Grab another player's donkey ("B") and etc., and so player B should be eliminated from the game. However, player A also grabbed player C's donkey, which meant he made two moves. Thus, using the instant-in-time interpretation to prevail means that the fluidity of moves and only having one move per turn contradict each other.
In order to preserve both move fluidity and a one move per turn limit, it is my interpretation that the scope of the word "one" is a Round, that only the most recently submitted move in a Round has any game effect, and that no move has any game effect until revealed by the Wrangler (keeping with the game custom that game effects occur at such time that they become publically knowable).
Therefore, this statement is TRUE.
Addendum: In his arguments, Malenkai brings up the case of who would get the donkey had this been FALSE. While the statement is not FALSE, I feel a need to clarify this. I do not believe the rules state that anyone ever receives a donkey except when they are originally distributed from the Game Box. It does state that a player may lose his donkey, in which case he no longer owns it and it enters the Treasury as do other unowned entities until such time as the Rules state it returned to the Game Box (at the end of the game). As for the scoring, R 1276 says that the Belt Holder receives a point for each donkey he has grabbed. I believe this should be interpreted to mean that he receives a point for each distinct donkey he grabbed during the course of the game -- it does not specify that the player to whom the grabbed donkey belongs must be eliminated from the game as a result of the grab. Therefore, if the eventual winner grabbed a covered donkey or took part in a multiple grab during the course of the game, it is still a grab for scoring purposes. However, if he grabbed the same donkey twice, only one instance counts.
Call For Judgement 304 - Wed, 16 Oct 1996 20:44:22 -0400
Subject: More Wrangling
Judge: Habeous Corpus (selected Sep 10, 1996, 22:36h EDT)
"the number of donkeyes e has Grabbed" in R 1276, section G, is the total number of donkeys the Belt Holder grabbed which resulted in a player being removed from the GAL, which is not necessarily the number of "grab moves" (R 1276-B-(b)) made by the Belt Holder.Initiator's Comments:
This interpretation is contrary to comments offered by the Judge of CFJ 303. I'm unconfortable establishing game custom in the reasoning of CFJs when the custom being written is not germaine to the truth of the statement being judged.Judge's Comments:
I see a case for TRUE and a case for FALSE here, it depends on how strictly you render the rule, in particular, how you render the word "grab" and the move of "grabbing".
Its pretty simple: Does the game move R 1276-B-(b) count as a "grab" for the purposes of R 1276-G "grab". To me, R 1276-B-(b) is an "attempted grab", and the rule is poorly worded, but I could be wrong. I'll let the judge sort it out; I see the strict-constructionalist verdict as well.
Rule 1276, section G awards points on the basis of the number of Donkeys the winner "Grabbed". It makes no mention of "Grab attempts" or anything less specific than the actual number Grabbed.
Section B refers to "Grabbing" and possibly could have been (should have been) better worded to state explicitly "Grab attempt".
While it could be and has been argued that even if player B Covered eir Donkey, the action of R1276 (B)(b) would count for a "Grabbed" Donkey on player A's behalf and result in points being awarded.
However, Section C specifically states that player B only loses eir Donkey if e fails to cover it. The common usage of the word "Grab" versus "Grab attempt" leads me to the conclusion that regardless of the clumsy wording of Section Bb, if player B successfully Covered eir Donkey, player A did not, in fact, "Grab" it.
For those who might claim that this represents a conflict or paradox, I remind em that game custom already established that successive sections of the same rule establish precedence in regards to that rule.
Therefor, I find the statement TRUE.
There has also been speculation, and even a Statement by a judge to the effect that the Rule does not prevent multiple Grab attempts in the same turn. Section B is very specific about this issue. It states that Player A must Grab "a specific player's" Donkey. It makes no provision for plural "players'" Donkeys. It also states clearly at the end of the section that a player may _change_ eir action at any time during the turn, but does not make a specific allowance for additional actions during that turn.
During any given turn of GAD, a player may successfully Grab, at most one Donkey. If and only if that Grab was successful and that player is also declared the winner, would the successful Grab result in any Points.
Call For Judgement 305 - Fri, 18 Oct 1996 21:09:45 -0400
Subject: Another PartyChess Paradox
Judge: Uncle Sam (selected Oct 11, 1996, 00:41h EDT) (left the game)
2nd Judge: breadbox (selected Oct 14, 1996, 22:35h EDT)
It is impossible to determine with finality whether, in PartyChess, the use of a CopyCat to capture an enemy CopyCat is legal.Initiator's Comments:
Rule 1085 has this to say on the matter. "A CopyCat captures a piece only according to the rules by which the captured piece can capture." This is a problem of infinite mirrors.Judge's Comments:
I am claiming a Paradox Win in accordance with R219, on a judgement of True.
As others have mentioned, this self-referential situation has two possible "attractors." The first is that, for the purposes of this situation, the CopyCat being captured has no rules regarding how a piece is captured (and vice versa). Thus, a CopyCat can never capture another CopyCat. The second is that, since a CopyCat can potentially make any possible move, given the right circumstances, a CopyCat can always capture another CopyCat, no matter their relative positions. (And, again, vice versa.)
While the first interpretation is certainly preferable, from the viewpoint of aesthetics and playability, this is not enough to dispel the ambiguity. A reasonable reading could conceivably lead one to either. Thus, the paradox is not resolvable as the rule currently stands.
Call For Judgement 306 - Sat, 12 Oct 1996 20:53:52 -0400
Subject: Effects of the P 1108 amendment of R 710 on past CFCJs
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
Judge: snowgod (selected Oct 11, 1996, 00:41h EDT)
At the time of this writing, only four CFCJ's have ever been ruled upon.Initiator's Comments:
Rule 710 clearly states, regarding a CFCJ:Judge's Comments:
Its "statement" shall be "X has broken the Rules", where X is replaced with the name of a resitered player.
Only four of the so-called CFCJ's filed yet, to wit, 112-115, follow this required syntax. The others have as their statements variations on "X has violated Rule 101." They may have very well been CFJ's, and validly ruled upon as such, but they were not CFCJ's, and should have had no punitive repercussions as such. Indeed, X may have violated Rule 101, and this statement may have been judged true by the courts, but at that point, the rules essentially dictate no further action to be taken unless a follow-up CFCJ was filed, which never happened.
When CFCJ's 101-110 were called, R710 read "Its 'statement' shall be 'Player X has violated R101', where X is replaced with the name of a registered player." CFCJs 101-108 and CFCJ 110 all take this form, and are valid CFCJs. CFCJ 109 did not follow this form, and was found to be invalid by it's judge.
Since the rules were followed in the form that they were then in effect, i am returning a verdict of FALSE.
Call For Judgement 307 - Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:18:22 -0400
Subject: Newspaper Naming
Judge: fnord (selected Oct 14, 1996, 12:57h EDT)
The owner of a Newspaper whose name is an article, such as those listed in Rule 703, section 2, sub-section b, must change its name as delineated by Rule 703, section 3.Initiator's Comments:
I direct his Judgeship to Rule 703, section 1, which directs that no 2 names shall be the same. Then to Rule 703, section 2, which defines how to determine sameness of two names.Judge's Comments:
Given Rule 703's name, applying Rule 703, section 2, will yield a discovery that Rule 703's name is identical to a Newspaper whose name is an article.
Given that, a verdict of TRUE is indicated. Following that, all players who own such Newspapers shall change their names in accordance with Rule 703, section 3.
According to Rule 703 Section 2 Sub-sections a and b, to compare for similarity, you must remove any articles from an entity's title, then remove anything that is not a letter or a number.
Doing these actions to mr cwm's Newspaper title, and to Rule 703's title, both end up with Null Strings, which are identical. Therefore, Malenkai's statement is TRUE.
Call For Judgement 308 - Sun, 20 Oct 1996 19:20:01 -0400
Subject: Quoting the Press
Judge: Mohammed (selected Oct 14, 1996, 22:26h EDT)
Simple use of the name of a Newspaper in a public post does not necessarilly constitute publishing or attempting to publish the text of the post in the specified Newspaper.Initiator's Comments:
Rule 891 says, in part:Judge's Comments:
News articles may be posted by the owner of a newspaper, quoting the of name of the newspaper in the article. Such an article is said to have been published in that newspaper.
No player may publish articles in a paper she does not own without the express permission of the owner.
News articles may be published without reference to a specific newspaper. Such articles are said to be the work of the Underground Press, or Samizdat organisations.
What is a "news article"? What does it mean to "quote the name of the newspaper"? Does the criterion of quoting the name of the newspaper apply to everyone, or just to the owner? The rule is unclear.
R 891 seems to indicate that news articles are distinct from ordinary messages when it specifies that they may be published without reference to a specific newspaper. Players are, and always have been, permitted to post almost whatever they wish to the public forum; that special provision has been provided for news articles suggests that these are distinct from normal messages. That whole argument notwithstanding, I think it a very straightforward interpretation, based on normal English usage, that the messages we post to the list are not, for the most part, news articles.
As far as "quoting the name of the newspaper" goes, it seems to be customary that simply including the words "Steel Flea Gazette" in a public message does not constitute an attempt to publish that material in that newspaper. The text of the rule is poor guidance in this case, but a contrary interpretation, aside from going against custom, could make things rather difficult for all players.
Some rules assign artificial meanings to certain words, meanings that only apply (or, indeed, make sense) within the scope of the game. Examples of such words in Ackanomic include "tradeable", "judgement", and "newspaper".
However, in my best judgement, a word in the Ackanomic language is only separated from its English meaning to the extent that the Rules (or some other source of legal authority) provide a clear definition for the word in its new context.
Some words, such as "Protected" and "Tradeable", have had clear definitions from the first time they entered the Rules. Other words, such as "Article", do not have official definitions strong enough to separate them from their English meanings. I interpret an article in this usage to be a document written in the style of a newspaper article.
Just exactly what constitutes such a "style" is not the issue here.
Call For Judgement 309 - Sat, 19 Oct 1996 01:45:57 -0400
Subject: P 1287
Initiator: Niccolo Flychuck
Judge: /dev/joe (selected Oct 18, 1996, 21:06h EDT)
Proposal 1287, "Similarity" was accepted.Initiator's Comments:
I know it was accepted. But there was a message by Techno that said his votes was lost, and since the results were 9-4, eir vote might have changed this. As eir reply to me below demonstartes, Techno voted yes on that proposal, which wold not change the fact that it was accepted. This is just meant to establish that, and prevent future problems based on an alegged uncertainty.Judge's Comments:---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 23:49:06 +0000 From: email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: acka: Q about some lost votes of yours > From: email@example.com > Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 13:46:51 +0200 (EET) > To: romey > Subject: acka: Q about some lost votes of yours > A couple of weeks back you posted a message that said Wayne lost some of your votes, > There was one proposal whose acceptance might be affected by this - P1287 > Similarity. The results were 9 yes, 4 no, one present, and you are listed > as having abstained. Do you happen to recall you vote (or better yet, > have a record of it)? > I'm sorry for bothering you with after you have already left the game, > > Niccolo Flychuck > (Uri Bruck) > >I voted yes to all proposals that showed me as having abstained. I was voting yes to make up for, and hopefully help pass some of the props that failed due to the UW strike. Hope this helps. [snip] Thanks. Techno (Jerome Herrman)
Call For Judgement 310 - Wed, 23 Oct 1996 18:28:26 -0400
Subject: Illegal Chess
Initiator: Niccolo Flychuck
Judge: mr cwm (selected Oct 20, 1996, 10:38h EDT) (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: Habeous Corpus (selected Oct 21, 1996, 14:27h EDT)
PartyChess move 14 - Place Bishop at f1 (Brinjal, NAP Swinger)- never occured.Initiator's Comments:
The move is illegal, and therefore it never occured.Judge's Comments:
Placing a Bishop at f1 in turn 14 would have threatened None Yet's Jester at c4. This is explicitly in violation of Rule 985.2/8 Section 3Biii.
Since this was a "retractable" error on the part of both Brinjal and the Umpire, the game is reset so that it never occurred.
I note that CFJ 311 may or may not have been retracted. If it was indeed retracted, I extend my ruling to include all moves after move 14 are also reset. In correcting a retractable error, in lieu of any explicit rules stating otherwise, the game is reset to the point when the error occurred.