Call For Judgement 416 - Wed, 25 Jun 1997 21:27:19 -0400
Subject: Financial
Initiator: /dev/joe
Judge: Rex Mundi (selected Jun 23, 1997, 20:57h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE


At Monday, June 23, 1997, noon Acka time, the bond dividends are calculated and the richest and poorest players are determined and 2% of the richest player's currency is calculated, and then both the dividend payments and the Rule 2101 payment happen simultaneously.
Initiator's Comments:
Background: Both events are said to occur at the same time. Rule 2101 has the 2% currency transfer thing. Rule 508 has the dividends. Rule 2101 just says it happens on Monday, but rule 380 says that when a day of the week is specified but no time of day is specified, the action happens at noon. Neither of these specifies a time zone so rule 380 makes both occur at noon EDT.

There are three cases I can imagine.

Case I:
Rule 508 and Rule 2101 are treated as conflicting rules, both trying to do something at once. Rule 508 wins the conflict, so it does its thing and then Rule 2101 does its thing. [This is the opposite of the statement.]

Case II:
Same as case I, but Rule 380 specifies the time for the event in Rule 2101, and thus it takes precedence over Rule 508.

Case III:
The case described in the statement. The dividends and R2101 payment are calculated simultaneously before either takes effect, and then both transfers happen at once. This has the same result as case II, since the bond dividend doesn't depend on the players' A$ balances. I think there's a little game custom that would lead to this being the expected result, but regardless of which way I do it somebody's going to question it, so I might as well make the CFJ first, right?

[Note: This actually matters, or at least might matter. I donated all my A$ to Seleya before noon acka time today, so that I would have A$0 when the R2101 effect happened. However, I then noticed that bond dividends happen at the same time, and I will earn enough dividends to pass some other players, especially with both myself and Voting Gnome benefiting from the Whamiols *and* the one-time return of points from the removal of Eggplant Weights. In the no-Azpiazu thread, I'm getting over A$160 in dividends, which is *still* less than what Robert Sevin is getting.]

Judge's Comments:
This would seem to fit with the way score changes are handled, and the rules don't really 'conflict', so the first two cases in /dev/joe's reasoning don't apply.

Call For Judgement 417 - Wed, 02 Jul 1997 18:17:43 -0400
Subject: Posthumous Voting
Initiator: Mohammed
Judge: two-star (selected Jun 24, 1997, 20:41h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE


In determining whether a proposal passes or fails, votes cast on the proposal by players who subsequently left the game are considered along with the other votes on the proposal.
Initiator's Comments:
This comes up because You can call me Al voted on a few proposals and then left the game. When the proposals were finalized it turned out Yccma had cast a potentially deciding YES vote. If this is TRUE, Yccma's votes count and the proposals in question are accepted.

Rule 106 says:

As soon as possible after a proposal's prescribed voting period ends, the votes on that proposal shall be posted publicly. The proposal is then accepted if a quorum has been achieved and the required number of YES votes were cast on the proposal.

No mention is made of players, undead, or registration. It has been mentioned that Wayne never counted posthumous votes, but the rules have changed significantly since those days.

Judge's Comments:
The initiator's reasoning is essentially correct. Unlike the non-voting player case, there is no other rule which attempts to remove the votes of players who have left the game.

Call For Judgement 418 - Fri, 27 Jun 1997 23:14:09 -0400
Subject: Holy Harfy Headwear
Initiator: Mr. Lunatic Fringe
Judge: Karma (selected Jun 25, 1997, 23:11h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE


The Registrar is not not required to release a list of players ackanomic hats until such time as every player has sent in a legal description.
Initiator's Comments:
From R2099
>Each player is hereby required to choose what they want their ackanomic
>hat to look like. They must then write a 25 line description of their
>hat, telling what it looks like and why they chose that design for it.
>Messages describing the players hat must be sent to the Registrar, who
>will compile a huge list of everyone's hat descriptions, and then make
>that list available for any player to see, in conjunction with the
This rule sets up a three step process. Each player must first "choose what they want their ackanomic hat to look like" Then they must write a description of it and send it to the Registrar.

Okay so far, but the third step is more complicated. The registrar is required to compile a list of *everyone's* hat design, and release such a list. I am not authorized or even permitted to release a partial list, and I do not think that speed kicks in until such time as I recieve a hat design from *everyone*.

Now, no offense to Robert Sevin (I love this rule), but I think this needs to be fixed. First though, I want to verify that there is broken, and that by not releasing a list of hat designs I am not violating the rules. :)

Judge's Comments:

Call For Judgement 419 - Mon, 07 Jul 1997 18:09:15 -0400
Subject: That's my Machine! I've got Patent Pending on that!
Initiator: Mohammed
Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected Jun 26, 1997, 19:09h EDT) (failed to deliver verdict)
2nd Judge: ThinMan (assigned Jul 05, 1997, 00:37h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE


Malenkai is guilty of Patent Infringement for possessing "military lasers" when P2104 was accepted (or shortly thereafter.)
Initiator's Comments:
Rule 716 (Patent Infringement) says:
> When a rule change occurs that causes a new named entity or named
> class of entities to exist, and a Player owns an entity with the
> same name as the new entity or class, that Player shall be Guilty of
> Patent Infringement, unless that entity is any type of Frog.
The main question is whether the rule in question is sufficient to "cause a new ... class of entities to exist." Certainly it didn't cause any actual *examples* of Military lasers to appear. But I argue that a "class" of entities is not a concrete thing but an idea-- and P2104 inserted the *idea* of Military lasers in the ruleset for the first time. It said:
> If a player assumes a title which requires a score higher than their
> own, in addition to any penalties required by other rules, that
> player is deemed to have been ambushed by Thargoids in hyperspace
> and blasted into a million pieces, leading to the replacement of any
> Military lasers in the player's possession by Pulse lasers, and the
> loss of 1 point.
Interestingly enough, that would cause Malenkai not to have a Pulse Laser:
> When a Player becomes Guilty of Patent Infringement they shall:
> 1) deliver the item described in the preceding paragraph to the
>    Gaoler, to be placed in the Gaol's Evidence Room.
Judge's Comments:
As Mohammed points out, P2104 did not cause any new entity to exist, so the question becomes whether it caused a new named class of entities to exist. This case, then, becomes a matter of what a class of entities is, and when one exists.

As far as I can tell, the rules nowhere specify a meaning for the term "class of entities," so I must rely on game custom and the spirit of the game, including standard English, for a definition. Rules 506 and 597 define Trinkets and Frankenstein Monsters, respectively, to be classes of entities. It seems to me that a "class" of entities is a conceptual tool which allows us to define the properties and behavior of many entities at the same time without naming or describing each one individually. This definition appears to be compatible with both the existing rules and with standard English. It would also seem that nameless entities must implicitly belong to a class of entities from which they derive their properties and behavior -- for example, I would render "Ackadollars" as a class of entities.

Military Lasers, then, certainly is, or at least can be, a class of entities. The question that remains is whether P2104 is sufficient to cause the class of entities "Military Lasers" to exist. In all other cases known to me, the rules specify the existence of the class of entities, either explicitly (Trinkets), or by stipulating the existence of the members of the class (Ackadollars). R2104 does not do this. Is defining properties of a potential group of entities sufficient to make that group an _existing_ "class," as defined by R716?

With some regret, I have to say yes. A class is more than the ensemble of its instances; it is, IMO and as I wrote above, a conceptual tool in its own right. Because P2104 assigned a property (or is it a behavior) to "Military Lasers," it brought into being the "class" of "Military Lasers." Thus the CFJ statement is TRUE.

Although it is not binding, I will note that I disagree with Mohammed about whether this ruling causes Malenkai to not have a Pulse Laser. R716 prescribes a player behavior to be taken; it does not cause any entity transfer to happen automatically. Moreover, I note that R716 allows no time window in which to perform such action, thus, IMO, the transferrence requirement can never be satisfied, and the net effect is to make Patent Infringement be a Crime (which otherwise it isn't).

Call For Judgement 420 - Sun, 29 Jun 1997 19:44:48 -0400
Subject: Non-voting Player Votes
Initiator: Mohammed
Judge: Malenkai (selected Jun 26, 1997, 19:13h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE


Votes that were legally cast on a proposal are counted (in determining whether the proposal is accepted) regardless of whether some those votes were cast by voting players who subsequently became non-voting players under Rule 254.
Initiator's Comments:
I can see this going either way, but I tend to see it as TRUE.

Rule 104:

> As soon as possible after a proposal's prescribed voting period
> ends, the votes on that proposal shall be posted publicly. The
> proposal is then accepted if a quorum has been achieved and the
> required number of YES votes were cast on the proposal.
Rule 106 defines "required number", but makes no mention of voided votes.

Rule 254:

> Any voting player may become a non-voting player by posting publicly
> that they are doing so; at the moment of this announcement, all
> their existing votes on proposals whose results have not yet been
> released are cancelled;  [etc.]
Now, you could say that Rule 104 does not really specify that *all* votes are counted, and that it leaves enough room for other rules to cancel votes without problems. That way, the statement above is FALSE.

Or, you could say that the idea of "cancelling" a vote does not conflict with Rule 104, but it doesn't have any effect either-- since Rule 104 says "if the required number of YES votes were *cast*" (emphasis mine), not "...cast and not later cancelled". In this case, the statement above is TRUE.

Or, you could say that Rule 254's attempt to "cancel" votes *does* conflict with Rule 104, and therefore it fails (since R254 doesn't claim precedence). This also means the statement is TRUE.

Judge's Comments:
The issue of this CFJ is game custom, and its scope and applicability. This is a very difficult CFJ, IMO.

The clause in question from rule 104 has remained pretty much unchanged since the initial ruleset:

>  (2) the required number of votes must have been cast in favor
> of the proposal;
Rule 106 was amended to add the following language as early as proposal 1412 (Nov 96), and possibly earlier:
> Voting Players may change their vote up until the end of the prescribed
> voting period, but in any case are limited to one vote per proposal.
Rule 106 has always had subordinate precedence to rule 104 via the numerical method, or, before proposal 1539, was subordinate via the immutable/mutable inconsistency axe of rule 108, which, if there was a conflict, would have made rule 106 (then 390) wholly void and without effect.

Why all this discussion about rule 106 when the case seems to involve the interactions between rules 104 and rules 254? I find the parallel between the two cases to good to ignore.

Rule 104 says that a proposal is accepted if some number of YES votes are *cast* on the proposal, and, as the initiator of this CFJ points out, provides no qualifying language with that regulation.

Rule 106 says that a player may change their votes on a proposal. It has said this for a long time, as I pointed out. We've been interpreting that there is no conflict between rules 106 and 104 in the matter of casting votes, changing votes, and then counting the changed votes for the purpose of determining whether a proposal has been accepted as described in rule 104 (or, more accurately, game custom has provided a resolution of the possible inconsistency). I judge that it is beyond reasonable doubt that players have changed their votes from time to time since the time that language was added via proposal 1412 (e.g. breadbox's 3rd Silver Moon proposal); thus this customary interpretation is well established.

There are 3 things to consider when using game custom: scope, correctness, and applicability.

I argued in my appeal of CFJ 415 that the game custom used applied to a specific case, and did not scope to the general case. I am going to argue the opposite case here, because I judge the game custom discussed in interpreting the interaction between rule 104 and 106 is general, and applies to *any* reasonable qualifying circumstances involving rule 104 and subsequent changes to the votes, simply because there is no reasonable reason to assume it applies only to rule 106; indeed, it was game custom at one point, and may still be, that votes by players who have left the game do not count. It has been argued that the rules have changed in this arena, but it is certain that there was never a rule that said: "votes by players leaving the game are disregared, this qualifies rule 104". There may have been a rule that said: "votes by players leaving the game are disregarded", or it may have just been (or still be) simple custom. I'm not here to judge CFJ 417, but I have shown the general nature of the custom surrounding rule 104 and potentially inconsistent qualifying circumstances. At least in this case, the qualifying circumstance is a rule; I will let CFJ 417's judge worry about that matter.

Its as if rule 104 has a customary rendering of "cast" to be 'cast, unless changed by some other factor'. CFJ 220 has established that game custom can establish implicit qualifiers in the absense of explicit ones, especially if the custom is long standing. I thus judge the 'cancelled' of rule 254 to be little different than the 'changed' of rule 106, and the custom established in one case to scope to the general case, as there is no explicit custom or example in the case of rule 254 to indicate otherwise.

I'm not going to spend alot of time discussing the "correctness" of this custom. Custom is correct by definition unless it can be shown to be directly countermanded by the rules (e.g. CFJ 113, correct incorrect custom). I do not see a mandate in the current rules against the custom of the rule 104/106 interaction. I acknowledge that this interaction could have been interpreted differently when the 'change' language was added to rule 106 (along the lines of the initiator's TRUE agrument), but it was not, hence we have *this* custom as opposed to something else.

Finally is the issue of applicability. Game custom applies in two instances: players following the rules (from 101):

> 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 current game custom.
and making judgement in accordance with the rules (from 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. 
Rule 101 does not apply because this is not a question of players following the rules, but a question of how various voting events affect the Platonic game state.

The rules are not silent or unclear, but the doubt surrounding this CFJ arises out of an apparent inconsistenty between 254 and 104. I have shown how game custom has been used to resolve this inconsistency in two similar instances for a long time, and have no clear mandate from the rules to judge that it does not resolve it the same way here, hence my judgement of FALSE. (I note that I have not addressed the potential precedence conflict between 104 and 254 that the initiator points out the possibility of; suffice it to say that cancellation of an event is not a precedence conflict with that event).

Call For Judgement 421 - Wed, 02 Jul 1997 18:15:33 -0400
Subject: Interpreting Literature
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: Rex Mundi (selected Jun 28, 1997, 2:33h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE


Proposal 2176 is Literature
Initiator's Comments:
The alleged literature in the proposal is:
> "There has been a spacecraft sighted, flying high above the sky." 
> [They Might Be Giants, "For Science", 1st verse]

> "Yes, I will kiss the girl from Venus, for science."
> [They Might Be Giants, "For Science", 3rd verse]

> "Now listen all you swingers, don't you try to tag along."
> [They Might Be Giants, "Absolutely Bill's Mood", line 12]
All the quotes have less than 14 words, but more than 7 words.

=From Rule 210:

> This quotation must be an exact copy of words found in, written, 
> uttered or otherwise communicated by the source, enclosed in
> quotation marks. It must be either a complete sentence of 7 words or 
> more, or a contiguous phrase of at least 14 words in length. [This
> last bit is to try and stop people from trying to pass off "to be"
> as a quote from Hamlet, and the like.] 
Clearly the "contiguous" provision applies to the quotes as used in the proposal, not the source. However, what about the term "sentence".

There are two things at work here:

1) Does "sentence" as used in the above quote from rule 210, mean that the quote must be a sentence 'as used in the proposal', or as it 'appears in the source material'. Obviously the CFJ is trivially true if it is the former. I tend to think the latter was intended, but the rule is not clear. There is no extant game custom, is there? If so, it must be used, if not, spirit of the game must be used to find the proper rendering of "sentence" as used above.

2) All the quotes in question are from lyrics. Generally lyrics and poetry are not punctuated as sentences, so it can be argued that most lyrics are not sentences, even if they seem sentence-like, although some may be. It may be the case that one or more of the quotes above is actually punctuated as a sentence in the source, indicating true (the Judge may have to do some research). However, its more important for the judge to address the general case of what constitues a "sentence" in lyrics and verse (and other forms) if it is deemed that "sentence" in rule 210 refers to the source, not the proposal.

Judge's Comments:
Lyrics aren't really done in sentences, which makes it difficult to pick sentences from them, and it would be a little restrictive to have to use 14 words when quoting lyrics (or poetry, or whatever). Perhaps the rule should be amended.

Call For Judgement 422 - Mon, 07 Jul 1997 22:07:16 -040
Subject: Azpiazu Lives?
Initiator: Alfvaen
Judge: two-star (selected Jun 29, 1997, 20:18h EDT) (declined)
2nd Judge: AZTEC GOD (selected Jul 01, 1997, 18:53h EDT) (declined)
3rd Judge: Mohammed (selected Jul 05, 1997, 00:47h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE


Azpiazu was not destroyed by the Blueprint rule.
Initiator's Comments:
While /dev/joe's amendments to the Blueprint rule was intended to make inconsistent Blueprints, like most Frankenstein Monsters, destroy themselves, I don't believe it did so in the case of Azpiazu, for the simple reason that R597 contains the sentence "This rule takes precedence over the Rules generally governing Blueprints."
Judge's Comments:
Rule 597 does not say anything that I construe to conflict with Rule 594's provisions causing Azpiazu to be destroyed.

Call For Judgement 423 - Tue, 15 Jul 1997 20:00:17 -0400
Subject: Questioning the strength of established game custom
Initiator: Alfvaen
Judge: two-star (selected Jul 07, 1997, 19:02h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE


The Loophole Surfboard was not destroyed by the Beldin's Pants rule.
Initiator's Comments:
The Rule states that the recipient of Beldin's Parka loses one trinket every week. I question a)whether or not the Museum can really be a "recipient", and b)whether or not the Museum can really "lose" trinkets. Basically, these rest on the fact that the Museum does not _own_ trinkets, but is a Location where trinkets can be placed, and happens to be specially allowed to be a Location for unowned trinkets(that do not then go to the Treasury or Somewhere Else). If this is the case, then I submit that one or both of questions a) and b) must be answered "no".
Judge's Comments:
There is no definition in the rules, nor any game custom regarding the definition of "recipient" as used in Beldin's Pants. Therefore I must fall back on standard English usage. R850 (Museum) states: "A player may donate any Gadget, Trinket, or Prosthetic Forehead that they own to the Museum, by going there and publically announcing which object(s) they are donating." It seems reasonable to consider the Museum the recipient of such a trinket, even if the museum does not become its owner.

Next, What does it mean to say the museum "loses" a trinket? The game custom of the loss of the inky bloater decoys, does not directly apply, since the inky bloater decoys became unowned when they were lost, and the museum inventory is already unowned. The Museum rule provides no guidance here, unlike the "recipient" case: the only relevant line concerning items ceasing to be on display in the Museum is: "Objects may not be removed or stolen from the Museum except as described by the rules."
which begs the question of whether Beldin's pants describes such a thing. While English usage would seem to imply that "lost" trinkets are removed from the Museum, I do not think that the case is strong enough as to be unambiguous. Perhaps they are transfered to the McCumber Annex. The inky bloater decoy custom also serves to undermine this interpretation, since it strengthens a definition of to lose (i.e. to cease ownership,) which is not relevant here. Since it could not have been known that the Beldin's Pants rule would be applied to the Museum when is was amended to include the word "lose," it seems that the word "lose" in Beldin's Pants should be considered to only have this definition in the absence of any other guidance from the rules or game custom.

Call For Judgement 424 - Sun, 20 Jul 1997 11:23:33 -0400
Subject: Conventional English Morphology I
Initiator: breadbox
Judge: two-star (selected Jul 10, 1997, 22:26h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE


The trinket "Bug Bashing Implement", created by breadbox, is a Forgery.
Initiator's Comments:
Bash is the name of a former player. The real question is whether or not the "-ing" form of a verb constitutes a "conventional English morphological change" as described by Rule 506.
Judge's Comments:
Names, as names, are nouns, even if a word that is normally a verb is chosen as a name. Verbing a noun is not a conventional English morphological change.

Call For Judgement 425 - Sun, 20 Jul 1997 11:29:08 -0400
Subject: Conventional English Morphology II
Initiator: breadbox
Judge: two-star (selected Jul 10, 1997, 22:29h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE


The trinket "Mister Cwm's Bench", created by breadbox, is a Forgery.
Initiator's Comments:
mr cwm is the name of a player. The real question is whether the full spelling of "mr" constitutes a "conventional English morphological change" as described by Rule 506.
Judge's Comments:
using /dev/joe's reasoning on CFJ 426, this does not seem to be a morphological change.

Call For Judgement 426 - Fri, 11 Jul 1997 08:44:46 -0400
Subject: Conventional English Morphology III
Initiator: breadbox
Judge: /dev/joe (selected Jul 10, 1997, 22:31h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE


The trinket "Mr X-Y-Z", created by breadbox, is a Forgery.
Initiator's Comments:
Mr X is the name of a former player. The real question here is whether the hyphen (or dash?) between "X" and "Y" constitutes a word break, or if "X-Y-Z" should be taken as a single word.
Judge's Comments:
All the CFJs 424-428 depend on defining standard English usage. I am only judging 426 but I will consider the general case, to some extent. The other judges should feel free to borrow from my reasoning.

As far as "morphological changes", Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary, does not define it, but it defines morphology (in dealing with language) as

a: a study and description of word-formation in a language including inflection, derivation, and compounding -- distinguished from syntax b: the system of word-forming elements and processes in a language.
Also perhaps relevant is the definition of "morphological construction", which reads:
a sequence of morphemes forming a complex or compound word (as unlike, baseball) -- compare SYNTACTIC CONSTRUCTION
Syntactical construction is:
a grammatical construction having only free forms as immediate constituents and having no formal characteristics identifying it as a compound (as "he went to school") -- compare MORPHOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTION
A morpheme is:
a meaningful linguistic unit whether a free form (as pin, child, load, pray) or a bound form (as the -s of pins, the un- and -er of unloader, and the -ed of prayed that contains no smaller meaningful parts
So with morphology we're dealing with the composition of compound and complex words. W3 defines a complex word as one which contains one or more bound forms while the first definition of a compound word is one composed of two words, opposed to complex (a second definition for compound follows which encompasses essentially any word containing at least two morphemes).

However, I haven't yet answered the question at hand, which is whether a hyphenated construction such as X-Y-Z is a word or three words. For this I turn to the more complete definition of "compound word" given at the start of the article "The Writing of Compounds" which is one of several prefaces to this dictionary. Section 1.1 of this article gives this definition:

A compound, as the term is used here, is a word or word group of two or more elements at least one of which is an independent word of the same language. The elements of an English compound are variously written solid, open, or hyphened when they are all English words, that can be written independently. When one of the elements in an English compound is not an independent English word, the elements are usually solid (watery, anticlerical, predate) or hyphened (de-emphasize).
The article goes on to describe almost every imaginable combination of two different types of words and word parts. You should be able to find the full article at any decent library. The general feel of the article is that coined combinations like X-Y-Z and Malenkai-run are considered compound words.

Now then, is X-Y-Z a conventional morphological change from X? I think not. Other English words don't typically have -Y-Z added to them. The answer to this part for Malenkai-run may be different; other nouns do combine with -run in this way (for instance, I live in a student-run cooperative). This could be a real tricky area of game custom if players insist on forcing the issue; I'm sure somebody could find a modifying form that appears in just enough words to start an argument over whether it is a conventional change.

Call For Judgement 427 - Fri, 11 Jul 1997 23:09:46 -0400
Subject: Conventional English Morphology IV
Initiator: breadbox
Judge: Mohammed (selected Jul 10, 1997, 22:33h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE


The trinket "Fon-due Set", created by breadbox, is a Forgery.
Initiator's Comments:
fon is the name of a former player. The real question, however, is whether the name is still a separate word in the eyes of Rule 506 when it is connected to an adjective by a hyphen.
Judge's Comments:
Following /dev/joe's excellent reasoning on CFJ 426, I conclude that postfixing someone's name with "-due" is not a conventional English morphological change.

Call For Judgement 428 - Tue, 15 Jul 1997 20:01:51 -0400
Subject: Conventional English Morphology V
Initiator: breadbox
Judge: AZTEC G0D (selected Jul 10, 1997, 22:36h EDT) (did not respond)
2nd Judge: ThinMan (assigned Jul 14, 1997, 8:08h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE


The trinket "Malenkai-run Office", created by breadbox, is a Forgery.
Initiator's Comments:
Malenkai is the name of a player. The real question, however, is whether the name is still a separate word in the eyes of Rule 506 when it is connected to an adjective by a hyphen.
Judge's Comments:
My own (limited) research confirms the results /dev/joe published in his CFJ 426 comments. My understanding of morphology in linguistics, then, is that it is the way in which morphemes are combined to form words. Morphemes are the smallest independant words and word parts that have individual meaning (i.e. run, -s, -er, pre-, etc.). The word Malenkai-run is indeed, IMO, a single (compound) word. It appears to me that the addition of "-run" qualifies as a morphological change. And as /dev/joe pointed out, it is a morphological construction of a type in general usage in the English language. Is that sufficient to establish convention? It is a matter of judgement, my judgement is that yes, "Malenkai-run" is derived from "Malenkai" by a conventional English morphological change, thus the trinket in question is a forgery.

Call For Judgement 429 - Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:27:47 -0400
Subject: Similarity
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: mr cwm (selected Jul 13, 1997, 19:10h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE


The H similarity of They Might be Slumbering Giants and They Might be Slumbering Giants is 100.
Initiator's Comments:
Similarity is described by rule 1003, section 4.
Judge's Comments:
R1003/14(4) states: "The H similarity between any two Organizations A and B, is the greater of orgsim(A,B) and orgsim(B,A)."

There is no Rule, Game Custom, or Spirit by which I can rule that TMBSG and TMBSG is two Organizations. The H similarity of TMBSG and TMBSG being, thus, undefined, it cannot be 100.

Call For Judgement 430 - Sat, 19 Jul 1997 02:01:03 -0400
Subject: Adjudicating Treasure 101
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: Guy Fawkes (selected Jul 13, 1997, 19:55h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE


The activity labelled Grab-a-Donkey that has been in progress over the past few months is not actually a game of Grab-a-Donkey.
Initiator's Comments:
This is a fascinating prinicple of law, IMO, and can have some far-reaching implications. Alot more fun than calling a CFCJ on the Wrangler for consistent gross tardiness, IMO :-)

Grab-a-Donkey is described by rule 1213. Rule 1213 lays out a prescription for playing the game of Grab-a-Donkey; in particular, it regulates the action of the Wrangler moderating a game of Grab-a-Donkey. I quote relevent sections of rule 1213 pertaining to the act of moderating the game:

> Rounds will last no less than one full day and no more than 3 full
> days from the start of the round. 
> E. At the end of the Round, the Wrangler will publicly report what each 
> player on the GAL did, and determine the results. 
The Wrangler thus has 3 days from the start of the round to post the results. The Wrangler is not an office, thus the speed provision does not apply, although there may be sufficient game custom to construe *any* time limits in the game to have an extra 3 day grace period tacked on. I'm not gonna get into that here, because it doesn't matter. Lets assume 6 days.

The Wrangler, on at least one occasion, has posted the results of GAD more than 6 days after the start of the round. Thus the game of GAD has not been played as described in the rules. (In case the statute of limitations comes into play in this CFJ, I note that the round announced this fortnight is tardy, so the SoL should not apply. Also, previous tardiness *has* been pointed out as well, another reason the SoL does not apply.) The fun part is, what does that *mean*?

I quote from rule 101:

> The rules and the game state may only be changed as described in the
> rules. Actions described in the rules may only be performed, and shall
> only have those effects, as specified by the rules.
The action of playing and moderating the game of Grab-a-Donkey that has occurred this spring and summer has not been performed as described in the rules, as demonstrated above. Actions, however, may *only* be performed as described in the rules. The conclusion, therefore, is that that action is not, in fact, a game of Grab-a-Donkey, but something similar with a much more relaxed pace. How's that for pretzel logic? I know there is a logician's term for it, but I cannot remember it OtToMH.

Ah, now this feels like nomic :-)

Judge's Comments:
The heart of the matter involves the interpretation of the portion of Rule 1213 quoted by the initiator. In short, it specifies that a round of Grab-a-Donkey last from one to three days, and that the Wrangler post the results of the round "at the end of" that round.

It is long-standing game custom that where a word or phrase has no Ackanomic-specific definition, common English usage may serve as a guide to its interpretation. After much thought, the judge has found that the critical phrase, "at the end of" can take on a variety of meanings in common usage, depending on context. A few examples:

"At the end of the day, he reflected on the events of that morning." Here, it is well understood in common usage that the subject's moment of reflection does not necessarily occur at the exact end of the day, midnight, and may in fact precede midnight by several hours. Perhaps it is evening, and he is sitting reflecting in front of the television; or perhaps it is as early as mid-afternoon, and he is reflecting on what happened at work on his way home. At any rate, the vast majorityof the notable events of that day have happened to him, and the phrase "at the end of the day" is easily understood in common usage.

"At the end of twenty minutes, I grew tired of waiting and walked away." Here, the event occurs simultaneously with the "end," and was in fact caused by the length of time before the end. Common usage accepts this as understandable and appropriate.

"At the end of the race, the marathoner collapsed in the middle of the interview." Here, the runner has, in fact, already crossed the finish line, and the race is over, but common usage understands the sentence completely: he collapsed shortly after crossing the line -- the phrase is appropriate because his collapse was the first notable event happening to him after crossing the line.

So, depending on context, an event occurring "at the end of" some period can take place before, simultaneously with, or after the exact end of that period. Or, the sentence can be completely ambiguous. For example:

"At the end of the game, the fans stormed the playing area." The common speaker of English would find this phrase applicable to The Play, in which the storming occurred before the end, and in which I am certain the replay shows the ball being lateralled at one point to a saxophone player; but common usage could also apply this to the last NBA championship, in which the storming brought about the end of the game and prevented the last half-second from being played; or the average speaker of English could find it appliccable to our last state high school basketball championship, where 12,000 exuberant fans watched in shocked silence as our local Manual Rams won an unprecedented fourth consecutive championship on a buzzer-beater, and then promptly stormed the court.

Depending on the interpretation of "at the end of" in Rule 1213, a phrase which can describe the last relavant events before the end, an event simultaneous with the end, or the first relavant events after the end, depending on context, the correct verdict varies.

Th initiator has interpreted Rule 1213 such that a round does not end until the Wrangler posts its results: in this interpretation "at the end of the round" means simultaneous with the end of the round, and in fact causing the end of the round. In this interpretation, the activity presently taking place under the guise of Grab-a-Donkey does not folow the description of Grab-a-Donkey in the rules: several rounds have endured significantly longer than the one to three days given by the rules. Due to the wording of the Rule 101 which the initiator quoted, this activity cannot affect the game state in the manner which Grab-a-Donkey affects the game state, because it does not follow the rules for Grab-a-Donkey, and the correct verdict is TRUE in this interpretation.

On the other hand, the Wrangler has seemed to follow an interpretation of Rule 1213 such that the rules for Grab-a-Donkey cuase a round of Grab-a-Donkey to end after three days if the Wrangler has not already done so by posting the results. The end of the round, than, is an automatic change to the game state after three days, and the Wrangler is free to release the results later; "at the end of the round" interpreted here as the first events relavant to the game of Grab-a-Donkey occurring after the instant at which the round ends. Since the Speed rule does not apply (Wrangling is not an Official duty), the Wrangler can release the results at his leisure in this interpretation, and the correct verdict is FALSE.

The Rules instruct a Judge to apply game custom and the spirit of the game to resolve differences of interpretation such as these.

The judge finds it useful to trace the history of this Grab-a-Donkey-like activity to find which of these interpretations best fits game custom. Wrangler snowgod began this activity in March, and the first few rounds were released as follows:

Round 1 began: 9 Mar
Round 2 began: 21 Mar (12 days)
Round 3 began: 24 Mar ( 3 days)
Round 4 began: 3 Apr (10 days)
Round 5 began: 16 Apr (13 days)
Round 6 began: 26 Apr (10 days)

During this time, the Wrangler frequently apologized for his tardiness in releasing the results (in fact, he apologized with every release of results except for the 3-day round). Since the lateness was noted by the Wrangler and others, the 14-day legalization of unnoticed rule violations does not apply. Certainly, the illegality of such lateness (illegal according to the first interpretation) was noted for the purposes of the Statute of Limitations when during the 13 day delay releasing results (from 3 Apr to 16 Apr), the Wrangler stated that he did not want the game to proceed too far in the midst of a potential thread split, and he announced that despite any illegality in doing so, he would withhold the results of the game until the Supreme Court returned the results of CFJ 364. When the Court returned UNDECIDED on April 14, the Wrangler gave up and released the results according to the (later ruled correct) thread of ThinMan grabbing breadbox's donkey. At any rate, in the first interpretation ("at the end of" meaning only "simultaneous with the end of"), the game of Grab-a-Donkey had ceased to be Grab-a-Donkey by April 16, 1997 due to this tardiness.

However, on April 23, CJF 376 (the continuation of CFJ 364) was distributed. It was later judged TRUE, establishing the truth of the statement: In Round 2 of the current game of Grab-a-Donkey (the results of which were released by Wrangler snowgod on 24 March 1997), ThinMan grabbed breadbox's donkey. Since CFJ's are judged with respect to the game state at the time of their submission, this established as game custom that on April 23, or perhaps on an unknown date up to three days before:

1) there was a current game of Grab-a-Donkey
2) this was the same game of Grab-a-Donkey whose 2nd round results were released on 24 March 1997
3) in that game's Round 2, ThinMan grabbed breadbox's donkey
If 1) or 2) had been false, the statement of CFJ 376 would have been meaningless, and therefore INVALID, or at the very best FALSE. Thus, the first interpretation (which would demand a TRUE verict) is not supported by game custom.

The judge can find no event, specifically no tardiness, occurring since April 23 which would cause the current game of Grab-a-Donkey to be other than Grab-a-Donkey that did not also occur before April 23, and so by game custom must be interpreted in such a manner such that it does not result in the current game of Grab-a-Donkey to no longer be Grab-a-Donkey.

This is not to suggest that all occurrences of the phrase "at the end of" in the Ruleset should be interpreted to mean "simultaneously with or after the end of." Automatic game state changes, particularly, should probably occur simultaneously with the "end" referred to in "at the end of". This judgment merely states that in this particular case, game custom does not support interpreting "at the end of" in Rule 1213 to refer only to simultaneity -- in short, game custom does not support the interpretation demanding a TRUE verdict. Game custom states that the proceedings of the current game of Grab-a-Donkey resulted in a game of Grab-a-Donkey existing on April 23; since then, this game has proceeded along a similarly slow pace, and so by game custom it still exists.

By game custom, I must rule FALSE.