Call For Judgement 536 - Wed 11 Feb 1998 11:46
Subject: Tornado Chess Piece
Initiator: The Gingham Wearer
Judge: K 2 (selected February 12, 1998, 3:00 p.m.)
Judgement: FALSE


There exists a party chess piece tornado controlled by The Gingham Wearer.
Initiator's Comments:
From rule 510:

"No Player, Undead, or Organization may use more A$'s to buy, trade, give or in any way move out of his account, than there are in his/her account at that moment in time. In other words, a player may never voluntarily go into debt, but it is possible that a player may go into debt involuntarily."

From rule 1230.1

"D. A player or Organization may create a new Party Chess Piece of any existing type for a Swinger. When this is done, the player or Organization pays the piece cost to the Treasury, and the new piece is created, off-board, in the possession of the specified Swinger. A new piece costs A$1, plus A$7 times the material value of the piece. A King may not be purchased in this way."

From my understanding of the above buying a party chess piece is not a voluntary payment. What actually happens is that the player/org creates the party chess piece. They then, as an involuntary action are forced to pay for having created a piece. This is supported by the phrase "when this is done" which, to me, indicates that the payment happens just after the creation of the piece.

If you look at some of the other rules detailing purchase you will see that their phrasing is quite different.

From rule 844

"A player may purchase a kaa of empty, common land for A$50."

From rule 1008

"Where the rules say that an Organization may buy a Power of a certain type, what is meant is that the Organization may, as an action, contribute an amount of currency to the Treasury in exchange for a new Power of the type specified, which is then created in that Organization's possession."

Judge's Comments:
Examining the section of rule 1230.1 which governs Party Chess Piece (PCP) construction.

>D. A player or Organisation may create a new Party Chess Piece of any existing type for a Swinger.

The word 'may' in this sentence indicates that it is giving permission for certain entities to create PCPs, the sentences which follow (and have precedence by rule 102) describe how that action is carried out.

>When this is done, the player or Organisation pays the piece cost to the Treasury, and the new >piece is created, off-board, in the possession of the specified Swinger.

Thus this sentence describes what happens when an authorised entity attempts to create a PCP, ie e pays then the piece is created.

PCP creation is a voluntary action, thus if the entity carrying out a creation does not have enough A$ the first step of creation (the payment),by rule 510, it fails, and the second step, which follows from the first, also fails.

Since Kerplunk, kerplunk III did not have sufficient fund to cover the creation attempt, by rule 510 it failed.

Thus The Gingham Wearer is not in control of a Tornado, nor any other piece created by the organisation Kerplunk, kerplunk III.

Call For Judgement 537 - Wed 11 Feb 1998 10:45
Subject: Vulcan Headquarters
Initiator: Vynd
Judge: Crackfoo (declined)
2nd Judge: /dev/joe (selected February 12, 1998, 3:25 p.m.)
Judgement: TRUE


An Extravagant building named Vulcan Headquarters exists.
Initiator's Comments:
Well, I'm not really sure if this is true or not. We had some discussion about it, and I thought that someone said they did a CFJ, but I never saw one. In any event, I *think* that it exists, but this belief comes from rather tenuous game custom.

It is more or less indisputed that Rule 1 created an Extravagant building named Vulcan Headquarters (VHQ). It is my belief that, once created, VHQ is not destroyed unless something explicitly causes it to be destroyed. This isn't an area that is directly addressed by the Rules, and there are few other examples to draw from. I can think of two, neither of which quite directly address the issue at hand.

First of all, there is the Office of Godfather. Malenkai took this office while it was defined by a Rule (Organized Crime). But then this Rule was repealed. Since that time, Malenkai has continued to be the Godfather, albeit the office no longer has any game effect as the Rules that gave it effect are gone.

Secondly, there are the Badges of Many Thanks. A number of Acka's older players possess these articles, which were given to them by Rule. The Rule which created them is long gone, but they continue to exist.

Other than this, there is simply the fact that nothing actually calls for the destruction of the building. There are rules that describe how buildings can be destroyed, none of them apply in this case. There was never a proposal which caused Vulcan HQ to be destroyed. The only reason to think that it was destroyed is because the Rule that used to say it exists no longer says this. But as the above examples indicate, this does not mean that the thing described by the Rule ceases to exist.

Judge's Comments:
CFJ 519 determined that the "Rule 1 is repealed. #1" bit did not succeed in repealing rule 1. Therefore, regardless of whether or not the latest attempt to renumber it worked, that rule exists and since Vulcan finally succeeded some time ago in changing their name back to Vulcan, this rule changed its text likewise. Regardless whether Vulcan Headquarters ceased to exist or not while the rule had different text, it exists now.

Call For Judgement 538 - Fri 13 Feb 1998 14:25
Subject: Money in the Bank
Initiator: Alfvaen
Judge: Balsamic Dragon (selected February 16, 1998, 12:00 p.m.)
Judgement: FALSE


The total number of A$ is 100,001 less the combined values of all extant Trinkets and Majiks.
Initiator's Comments:
That number was 100,000, by Rule 505, just before I bought the Magic Radish from Balsamic Dragon's Vending Machine.

From the Blueprint, Rule 594.4:

If a Vending Machine is owned by the possessor of the Magic Potato, e may vend therefrom Magic Radishes. The price for which a Magic Radish may be sold starts at A$7.

Balsamic Dragon never changed this price, so it was still A$7 when I bought the Radish.

The owner of a Vending Machine may change the price for which the Machine sells any item. This fails if the price for that item was changed at any time within the preceding thirty days or if the new price is not an even integer.

This does not prohibit the price of Magic Radishes from _starting_ at A$7, since it only prohibits the change of price, not the initial price as stated in this Rule.

Any player may attempt to buy any item from any Vending Machine. This fails if the Vending Machine is broken or unowned; if the Vending Machine is not equipped to vend the specified item; or if the player attempting to buy the item does not have the current price for which the specified Machine sells the specified item.

None of this applied, so my attempt to buy the Radish succeeded. (Just covering my bases...)

If the action succeeds then the Machine transfers half of the current price of that item to its owner and the other half to the Treasury, and then it creates a new item of the type requested and gives it to the buyer.

Now, half of A$7 is A$3.5, and "the other half" is also A$3.5.

By Rule 500, "Entities":

Entities may not be broken into fractional pieces, and fractional pieces of entities may not be created. When any rule or anything else empowered by the rules specifies a fractional number of entities are created, destroyed, transferred, or otherwise operated upon, that action uses the least integer greater than the fractional number in place of the fractional number. This paragraph takes precedence over all other rules.

So "half the current price of that Item", A$3.5, is rounded up to A$4, and that was transferred to Balsamic Dragon, "the other half", A$3.5, also rounded up to A$4, was transferred to the Treasury.

Now apart from the A$7 I paid into the Vending Machine, there was A$99,993 in other A$, Trinkets, and Majiks. That A$7 somehow gets transformed into two halves, A$4 and A$4, before getting transferred to the two recipients. So now there's A$100,001.

Furthermore, the precedence sentence supercedes mere Rule 505:

AckaDollars may not be created nor destroyed, except as Trinkets are created and destroyed. This Rule has precedence over any Rule that would create or destroy A$, except it defers to rules concerning the creation and destruction of Trinkets.

Well, Rule 501 specified the creation of an Ackadollar there when A$7 was split into two halves, and Rule 501 has numerical precedence by Rule 102.

Whenever the Rules specify that a Player should receive A$, and do not indicate where those A$ should come from, they shall come from the Treasury. Whenever the Rules specify that a Player should lose A$, and do not indicate where those A$ should go to, or specify that they should be destroyed, they shall go to the Treasury instead. The total number of A$ shall always be 100,000 less the combined value of all extant Trinkets and Majiks (including those Trinkets and Majiks created in Ackanomic, yet exported as described in the rules).

Although, as I read this, another possibility occurs to me. The Vending Machine Blueprint's language is exceedingly vague as to what happens to the A$7(or whatever you pay to the Vending Machine). It never says that the buyer _loses_ the Vending price, it just says that the VM transfers it to the VM's owner and the Treasury. It doesn't say where _that_ money comes from either.

So it is also possible that the Machine transferred A$4 to Balsamic Dragon and A$4 to the Treasury _from me_, in which case I paid A$8 instead of A$7. If this is the case, then this CFJ should be ruled FALSE.

Either way, the VM Blueprint language should be cleaned up, and the price of a Radish made something even.

Judge's Comments:
I believe that the Initiator's second idea was correct. There are two possibilities:

The buyer never actually loses the amount of A$ equal to the purchase price (they simply must be in possession of it to use the vending machine);

or, the A$ in question are tranfered from the buyer, to the owner of the machine and the treasury respectfully.

In this case, I think that game custom and a sensible reading of the rules points to the second option. Thus, when Rule 594.4 attempts to call for the transfer of A$3.5 from the buyer to the owner of the machine, it actually, by Rule 500, transfers A$4. Same when it transfers to the treasury. Thus, the buyer of a magic radish is out A$8 instead of A$7, and the number of total Ackadollars remains unchanged.

Note: There could be a real problem if someone attempts to, say, buy a magic radish when e only possesses A$7. This should be fixed.

Call For Judgement 539 - Sun 15 Feb 1998 19:40
Subject: Bandwidth Height
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: hoover 2300 (selected February 16, 1998, 12:05 p.m.) (deadbeat)
2nd Judge: Fortunato (selected Fri, 06 Mar 1998 13:05:27)
3rd Judge: Vynd (selected Sun, 15 Mar 1998 12:56:45) (deadbeat)
4th Judge: Alfvaen (selected Mon, 23 Mar 1998 13:07:39)
Judgement: TRUE


The height of the Tower of Bandwidth is between 131 and 132 feet.
Initiator's Comments:
Judge's Comments:
As far as I can tell, the main confusion in this arises from the original description, posted back in October of 1996, wherein the tower was described as being "40' meters" in height. Now 40' is forty feet, unless ' is interpreted as a first derivative in which case it's zero because the derivative of a constant is zero. But I think that's unlikely.

However, on October 31, 1996, when the plan for building the Tower of Bandwidth had been approved(as was later settled by a couple of CFJ's I just looked up but already forgot the numbers of), snowgod posted:

I am spending A$120 to build the Tower of Bandwidth, as described in my pan[sic] submitted to the senate. Come January, in year two of our nomic, I hope to add another 40 meters.

This cost is consistent with a 40-meter tall tower. No further building on the Tower of Bandwidth was done(though snowgod did mention something about it in February of 1997), so it should have that height still.

Since there is no definition in the Rules for "feet" as a measurement, I'll just use the standard 1 meter=3.28 feet conversion, which yields a height of approximately 131.2 feet(with more significant digits than I am probably allowed, although of course the Rules could certainly define 40 meters as an exact number, i.e. 40.00000000000... meters).

Thus I must rule TRUE on this CFJ. (Is three deadbeats a post-Praetorian record?)

Call For Judgement 540 - Wed 18 Feb 1998 18:43
Subject: Treasury Cards
Initiator: Veal Fan
Judge: The Gingham Wearer (selected February 20, 1998, 8:45 a.m.)
Judgement: TRUE


At noon on February 17, 1998 there was a Scientist For A Day Otzma Card in the Treasury.
Initiator's Comments:
The following facts are not in dispute: February 15, 1998 was an Otzma Day, and Slakko, as RuneMaker, created, among other cards, a Scientist For A Day Otzma Card. E then called an Auction for that card, among others.

What is in dispute is the ownership of said card between the time of its creation and the completion of the Auction. There are two plausible alternatives: that Slakko owned it, and that it was unowned.

If Slakko owned it, then e owned all of the Otzma Cards that had been created on February 15, which numbered...well, more than ten, since I'm too lazy to check the exact number. But by Rule 1240.1:

2. Any single player may not own more than six Otzma Cards simultaneously.

Nowhere else in the Rule does it claim that this does not apply to the RuneMaker. So now the two alternatives boil down to this: Either Slakko failed to create more than six Otzma Cards on this Otzma Day(and not even that, since e owned some Otzma Cards emself before creating them), or the Otzma Cards were unowned.

Rule 505 states that "The Treasury...serves as a storing house for entities that belong to no Player, except for those entities which the rules explicitly state are not in (or considered to be in) the Treasury". Rule 1240.1 says nothing about the Otzma Cards up for Auction not being in the Treasury, either.

(This was not troublesome until first Auction Them Entities allowed entities in the Treasury to be Auctioned, and then Slakko amended Rule 1240.1 to allow Otzma Cards in the Treasury to be bought for A$10 each. Now, unless this is fixed one way or the other, future Otzma Day auctions will turn into Hubert situations.)

While I'm at it, there is a similar question as to the ownership of Gadgets created by Scientists while they are being Auctioned. Of course, since all that can be done with a Gadget in the Treasury is to ask the Financier to auction it, this won't be similarly problematic in that case, but what if a Scientist owns the Gadget while the Auction goes on, and can use it with impunity? Like a Spell Book of Chorg, or a Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much, Really, or a Scroll of Crumble? This is a loophole waiting to be surfed.

So does game tradition consider an object to come into the possession of its owner when it is created? Rule 500.2 specifically says:

When an ownable entity is created, it is unowned, unless the Rules specify an initial owner for it.

The Trinket rule specifies that the creator of the Trinket is its initial owner. The Otzma Card Rule Suite is silent on the initial ownership of Otzma Cards. (Rule 595 also does not specify the Scientist who creates a Gadget as its initial owner.)

Therefore Otzma Cards(and Gadgets)that are being auctioned just after creation are in the Treasury. (Had I had better timing, I could've bought the entire recent Otzma Day auction for a song. Pretty close to what was paid for a single Art Thief card. Ah, well...)

Judge's Comments:
Basically I agree with the initiator's reasoning.

Looking at rule 1240 I notice that there is no mention of who, if anyone, owns the otzma cards created in an otzma day. Therefore, by rule 500.2 it must be unowned, as pointed out by Veal Fan. It is an entity, it is not owned by a player and it is not explicitly stated that it is not in the treasury. Therefore it must be in the treasury.

Call For Judgement 541 - Fri 20 Feb 1998 21:36
Subject: Praetor Deadbeat
Initiator: Balsamic Dragon
Judge: The Gingham Wearer (selected February 20, 1998, 9:45 a.m.)
Judgement: FALSE


The office of Praetor is vacant.
Initiator's Comments:
On February 2, as Clerk of the Court, I assigned CFJ 528 to rufus.
On February 2, rufus accepted this CFJ.
On February 9, Malenkai, the current Praetor, went on vacation.
On February 10, Alfvaen appointed Calvin n Hobbes as Acting Praetor. (footnote 1)
On February 11, I declared rufus to be a deadbeat, and reassigned CFJ 528 to the Praetor. (footnote 2)
It is now February 20.

From the Rule defining the Office of the Praetor:

IV. The Praetor may not decline Judgment. When a CFJ is submitted to him, he is assumed to have immediately accepted it. He may send a CFJ to the Supreme Court, and if e does this, he is not required to deliver a verdict.

V. The Praetor is forbidden to take any action or inaction which would cause him to be a deadbeat. If he is ever a deadbeat, he is immediately removed from office, and the seat is vacant.

From the Rule concerning Acting Officers:

The Rules may specify conditions under which a Player serves in an Office in an "Acting" capacity. In such a case, the Player is responsible for performing all of the Duties without receiving any of the Privileges of the Office, except for Privileges which are also explicitly defined to be Duties by the rules, or Privileges required to perform explicitly defined Duties, or Privileges of the office when the Acting officer is filling in for a vacationing player.

Therefor, if there was a Praetor on February 18, e was removed from office and the seat became vacant.

footnote 1: What Alfvaen said was If e approves, I appoint Calvin N Hobbes to be Acting Praetor again until Malenkai returns.

footnote 2: What I said was As rufus has not yet returned a verdict, this goes to the acting Praetor who is, I believe, Calvin n Hobbes.

Judge's Comments:
As Balsamic Dragon pointed out, Alfvaen (as was) wrote: "If e approves, I appoint Calvin N Hobbes to be Acting Praetor again until Malenkai returns."

I am unable to find any acceptance message from Calvin n Hobbes so I can only assume that e did not become acting Praetor on this occasion.

From rule 425 (Praetor) "I. The Office of the Praetor is a Political Office. To be eligible for the office, a player must be active and one or more of the following:

a) a Bronze Torch holder
b) the owner of a Gold Stripe or Ruby Slipper
c) a former Supreme Court Justice
d) enshrined in the Hall of Elders

Regardless of any other eligibility, a current Justice or Acting Justice is never eligible."

This would therefore suggest to me that when Malenkai went on vacation e was no longer eligible to hold the position of Praetor (e wasn't active). What does this mean in practical terms?

From rule 402 I get the impression that eligibility is only a matter when nominations are being conducted for an office. No rule specifies that a player ineligible for an office should be removed from an office so it is reasonable, if perhaps slightly counter-intuitive, to assume that Malenkai remained in the office of praetor when e went on vacation.

From rule 255 (Vacationing)

"The duties of any offices held by the player shall be performed by the Speaker or someone appointed by the Speaker, unless some other rule provides for an Acting Officer or some other assignment (including possible non-assignment) of these duties (or the office). The person assuming the duties of these offices is said to be assuming them in an acting capacity, and as such, these appointments or assumption must be made in accordance with R 401, section (i). It is permissible for an acting officer, appointed by this clause, to assume the duties of another acting officer."

Since no-one else was appointed by the speaker to perform the duties of Praetor the speaker, i.e., Alfvaen/Veal Fan, had to fulfill the duty.

Section (iv) of rule 401 reads:

"The Rules may specify conditions under which a Player serves in an Office in an "Acting" capacity. In such a case, the Player is responsible for performing all of the Duties without receiving any of the Privileges of the Office, except for Privileges which are also explicitly defined to be Duties by the rules, or Privileges required to perform explicitly defined Duties, or Privileges of the office when the Acting officer is filling in for a vacationing player. A Capital Office is never filled in an Acting capacity, except as described in rule 404. Non-voting players may only be acting officers for offices which may normally be held by non-voting players. An entity never holds a particular seat in both an Acting capacity and a "normal" capacity. If this ever appears to be the case, it is assumed that they are holding the office in an Acting capacity only."

Again from rule 425:

"V. The Praetor is forbidden to take any action or inaction which would cause him to be a deadbeat. If he is ever a deadbeat, he is immediately removed from office, and the seat is vacant."

I agree with Balsamic Dragon that if there was a praetor or acting praetor at the relevant time then e was deadbeat and the Praetor is removed from office. The only logical interpretation is that the Praetor would be removed. It would not be possible to remove the Speaker from performing the task in an acting capacity, since e does it by default, and would immediately be returned to being required to perform the duties of the office.

Alfvaen/Veal Fan was the one who was deadbeat. The question is, "Was e acting Praetor at the time e was deadbeat?"

Note back up in the rule for vacationing:

"The duties of any offices held by the player shall be performed by the Speaker or someone appointed by the Speaker, unless some other rule provides for an Acting Officer or some other assignment..."

The way I interpret this is that when the Speaker is performing the duties of a vacationing officer, e is not doing so in an acting capacity. If the rule had said "provide for a different acting officer", or something similar then I would have interpreted this differently.

So, Alfvaen/Veal Fan was deadbeat, but e was not acting Praetor at the time. Therefore the Praetor was not removed from office.

I also notice that Malenkai was not deadbeat on this. The rule says the Praetor will be removed from office if *e* is deadbeat, not if the person performing the duties of the Praetor is deadbeat.

To the best of my knowledge, nothing else has happened to remove Malenkai from the office of Praetor. Therefore e is still Praetor. Therefore the office of Praetor is not vacant. Therefore I rule FALSE.

Call For Judgement 542 - Fri 20 Feb 1998 10:57
Subject: Museum Entities
Initiator: The Gingham Wearer
Judge: Slagothor (selected February 23, 1998, 11:45 a.m.)
Judgement: FALSE


All entities in the museum are also in the treasury.
Initiator's Comments:
I only spotted this when I was judging CFJ 540 and was considering pointing this out in my reasoning. Eventually I decided the two cases were sufficiently different to warrant two separate CFJs however.

Rule 505 states:

"The Treasury is a named, unownable entity that serves as a storing house for entities that belong to no Player, except for those entities for which the rules explicitly state are not in (or considered to be in) the Treasury."

Entities in the museum do not belong to any player, nor does the rule for the museum explicitly state that entities in the museum are *not* in the treasury. Therefore I can only presume that they must be in the treasury.

Judge's Comments:
The last sentence of section III of Rule 850, "Museum," states that "Items on display in the Museum are not considered in the Treasury." This seems rather unequivocal to me; there could perhaps be some nits picked on the basis of the somewhat ambiguous wording, but I think it's rather clear that the items in question are in the Museum rather than the Treasury.

Thanks to the Calf-Killing One [Veal Fan] for doing my job as well as eirs.

Call For Judgement 543 - Fri 20 Feb 1998 10:57
Subject: Blackness
Initiator: The Gingham Wearer
Judge: Balsamic Dragon (selected February 23, 1998, 11:45 a.m.) (left the game)
2nd Judge: Alfvaen (selected Thu, 05 Mar 1998 18:26)
Judgement: FALSE


Black is not a colour.
Initiator's Comments:
Following Guy Fawke's recent butt-head CFJ and the recent goings-on on the internomic mailing list I thought I'd see what a judge would make of this one. Personally, I say that it isn't, but that isn't really what's relevant. What is is the manner in which this CFJ is treated.
Judge's Comments:
The first thing to do is to check the Rules to see if there is any statement one way or the other regarding black.

I find the following interesting entry in, of all places, Rule 1250.5, "Description of a Standard Deck". It states, first, "Spades and Clubs are black. Hearts and Diamonds are red." Then, in the next paragraph, it says "Jokers have no suit, rank, or color." Ranks having been mentioned before the sentences quoted, it seems to be clear that "having no color" is meant to _contrast_ with the other cards, which thus must have "color", in this case either red _or_ black. (Rule 1250.6 similarly refers to cards with no color, and other cards which are blue, green, black or red.)

Rule 1350, "La Luna", includes the phrase " least 250 words, none of which are a colour, except for white, sepia, and black, should black ever be a colour". So it is entirely equivocal on the colourness of black.

Rule 669, "Marks of The Champion", states that "A Champion's Cloak is a regal garment of the color(s)...of its owner's choice". I note that /dev/joe's Champion's Cloak is a "black velvet hooded cloak" when it is not invisible, ThinMan's is covered with ermine spots(which are probably black), and Slakko's has a "black and yellow check" lining. All of these seem to be references to colours.

There's not many more references to colours, or black, in the rules. I also have to admit that I personally consider black to be a colour, if only because I can't think of another word to describe something with tends to be grouped with colours so often. In my Random House Dictionary, it refers to black as "the colour at one end of the scale of grays, opposite to white, absorbing all light incident on it". There is no Rule that contradicts the fact that black is a colour, and much that would tend to corroborate it, since the interpretation of "colour" in the Rules tends to include black. Therefore I have no choice but to rule this CFJ FALSE. But not cavalierly, and if anyone has the temerity to appeal this I hope the Supreme Court throws the book at em. (If you don't want black to be a colour, try to put it in the Rules. But it's been tried before.)

Call For Judgement 544 - Thu 05 Mar 1998 17:58
Subject: Selling Stocks
Initiator: else...if
Judge: Rex Mundi (selected March 06, 1998, 12:57)
Judgement: FALSE


It is equally legal and illegal for else...if to sell 100 stocks.
Initiator's Comments:
Rule 530 says:
"If the player lacks enough money to purchase the number of shares they requested, than the purchase request will be treated as if they requested the largest number of stocks they can buy without going into debt." else...if requested 100 stocks. The above clause was applied, so it was treated as if he requested 1 share, so the above clause was not applied, so the above clause was applied, etc. It is illegal to trade an entity a player does not own. Thus, since else...if equally has 1 and 100 shares, it is equally legal and illegal for him to sell 100 shares.
Judge's Comments:
Rule 510, Voluntary Debt Prohibited, says:
"No Player, Undead, or Organization may use more A$'s to buy, trade, give or in any way move out of his account, than there are in his/her account at that moment in time. In other words, a player may never voluntarily go into debt, but it is possible that a player may go into debt involuntarily."

The first sentence would seem to prohibit else...if from buying the stocks. However, the second sentence would permit the purchase, if it was involuntary.
So the question becomes: was the purchase voluntary?

My dictionary gives
"1. done or undertaken by free choice: /a voluntary action./"
Since else...if freely chose to attempt the purchase, I judge this CFJ false.

Call For Judgement 545 - Sat 07 Mar 1998 17:20
Subject: Shelter
Initiator: The Gingham Wearer
Judge: Hubert (selected March 06, 1998, 17:21)
Judgement: TRUE
Appealed by Alfvaen


The Gingham Wearer is sheltered.
Initiator's Comments:
Once more, this is something I'm not sure about. CFJ has established that there still exists a building called rule 1 is repealed. #1 and The Gingham Wearer attempted to go there with the following message:

"I am leaving the wilds and going to Rule 1 is repealed. #1 Headquarters."

There are a few possibilities:
1. E didn't succeed in this action because the members of Vulcan didn't let em in.
2. E got in but isn't sheltered because the building isn't defined in the rules.
3. E got in and is sheltered because of Rule 1 is repealed. #1 Headquarters.
4. E got in and is sheltered because e is on the same Kaa of land as Vulcan HQ.

Basically, what I want to know, is how many of its properties R1IR#1HQ retained after the Vulcan changed their name back to Vulcan. I'm pretty sure that it will turn out that I'm not sheltered, but I'm not 100% sure. The best example I can think of is that there still exists The Widget of Yendor but it doesn't have any of it's old properties. Except entityhood I believe, oddly enough. This is different though. Not only has entityhood been maintained but buildingness has too. Why is this? I don't know. And if it's buildingness is maintained why not all it's other properties. If it turns out that I am sheltered then I think we need to set about destroying rule 1 is repealed. #1 HQ otherwise Tornadoes might not be quite as interesting.

Judge's Comments:
If Rule 1 is Repealed. #1 Headquarters kept its other attributes such as Extravagance and Commonness, I see no reason that it shouldn't keep its towers as well, since they are also entities that were created by the same Rule. This could, however, cause things to start getting sticky.
Appealer's Comments:
Rule 1, at the time, created a building called 'Rule 1 is repealed. #1 Headquarters' with "six 3500-meter tall ostentatious towers attached to it which are not associated with any player." Rule 1 also defined other characteristics for it, including it being a Common Location, and the fact of only being able to be admitted by members of 'Rule 1 is repealed. #1', a.k.a. Vulcan.

Rule 835 is not clear as to whether R1ir#H (for short) would remain a Common Location after the Rules stopped specifying that it is. However, considering that the magic words "A Location may only be a Common Location as specified by the Rules" do not appear, I think it is possible that it could be.

So let us assume The Gingham Wearer was able to enter R1ir#H. Would e still be Sheltered? Rule 841 states that "the term 'Ostentatious Tower' is always with respect to a particular player". I believe that this may cause the no-player-associated Ostentatious Towers on R1ir#H(and, for that matter, Vulcan Headquarters)to not function as Ostentatious Towers for the purposes of the rest of the Rule. The word "ostentatious" in what is now Rule 1150 may be considered to be a meaningless adjective, because the Rules do not support its attempted definition. By elimination, the towers on the two Headquarters must be Public(although there is the possibility that they do not fit the criterion for Public towers either, and may end up being towers of unspecified nature).

Thus, I believe that the Towers on R1ir#H, and VH as well, are not Ostentations for the Purpose of Rule 841, and thus do not possess Sheltering basements.

I also note that the fact that Towers seem to be specified to Shelter players _only during Tornados_ would make this trivially FALSE anyway, but I'd like to know whether TGW would be Sheltered during the Tornado as well.

Call For Judgement 546 - Sat 07 Mar 1998 18:09
Subject: Balsamic Dragon's Elderhood
Initiator: Alfvaen
Judge: Hibert (selected March 07, 1998, 18:19)
2nd Judge: Hubert (selected March 15, 1998, 12:46)
3rd Judge: Vynd (selected March 16, 17:39)
Judgement: FALSE


Balsamic Dragon's likeness is in the Hall of Elders.
Initiator's Comments:
What this really boils down to is the whole Vacation thing. February 27th is "mr cwm's Day", by Rule 843, and this is an Ackanomic Holiday. It has been put forward that this means it is also a Holiday by Rule 415. I know that game custom has never treated it this way in the many months I have been in the game, unless all the Ackanomic Holidays are clustered in March and April and I just never had run across them before. :-) (Actually, there is quite a cluster in April, with "this is not a holiday", "Brinjal's Day", and "Bascule's Day", not to mention "Mr. Lunatic Fringe's day on March 31st.) But what about Wayne's Day, on October 13th? Habeous Corpus's Day, July 13th? (Okay, things were chaotic enough at that time that we might not have noticed, and anyway HC was an active player at that time, possibly as Voting Gnome.) IdiotBoy's Day on August 30th?

The question of whether an "Ackanomic Holiday" is a "Holiday" may or may not be a subtle one. If it were a Holiday, why has past game custom dictated that it is not? Is this another "military laser" situation, where what seems to be a straightforward correspondence of types is nothing of the sort? Since it affects Balsamic Dragon's Elderhood(but, luckily, not many other thread-splitting events), I think we should know.

Judge's Comments:
While it is certainly plausible that Ackanomic Holidays (Rule 843) and Holidays (Rule 415) are the same thing, the rules do not tell us one way or another. Alfvaen is correct in his belief that custom indicates that Ackanomic Holidays are not Holidays such as declared by the President. Thus deadlines would not be extended over player's days such as mr cwm's day. Since the rules are unclear, it is this custom that holds sway.

Since Balsamic Dragon did not recieve the required support for her Elderhood in the three days following her nomination (including mr cwm's day), she was not inducted into the hall, and her likeness does not appear there. The statement of this CFJ is FALSE.

Call For Judgement 547 - Wed 11 Mar 1998 09:19
Subject: Shelter
Initiator: Hibert
Judge: /dev/joe (selected March 11, 1998, 17:36)
Judgement: FALSE


The Church of banna has 30 000A$.
Initiator's Comments:
Church Policy requires a penalty of 30 000A$ before a new member may change locations. Wild Card is such a member, and as a result of the recent Bracket Pendantry Hearing, must go to the wilds of Ackanomic. To not pay the fine would be Iconoclasm, which the rules prohibit if there is an alternative. In this case, there is, namely, paying the fine.
Judge's Comments:
First I note it is trivially false. If it had A$30000, it was withdrawn by the church founder and turned into lots of little trinkets.

However, assuming the initiator meant "the church of banna had A$30000 before hibert took it", it is false anyway.

By R1301, section 3. c., it is impermissible for a player to take a game action that constitutes iconoclasm if he or she has any legal alternative which would not constitute iconoclasm. However, Wild Card did not perform any action which disobeyed the policy of the church of banna. The rules did it to him. Therefore, this section of the rule does not apply. Wild Card still commits iconoclasm because he disobeyed church policy, even though he took no game action to disobey it.

Slakko contends (in separate arguments) that R1308's effect may constitute an "involuntary game action", and thus trigger the above impermissibility clause. However, as Guy Fawkes so kindly pointed out, game actions are defined in R709 to be things where the player must act, and therefore things that the rules do to a player automatically are not game actions performed by that player.

In any case, paying the A$30000 penalty is not a legal alternative for Wild Card. The way the policy was written, a legal course of action for him would be to have acquired A$30000 in some legal manner, and paid the A$30000 to the church before being moved to the Wilds, but at the time the rules moved him, he had not paid the penalty, and the rule cannot change his past inaction.

Call For Judgement 548 - Mon 16 Mar 1998 22:36
Subject: Liar's Paradox
Initiator: The Gingham Wearer
Judge: Goldenmean (selected March 16, 1998, 22:37)
Judgement: retracted


The action of The Gingham Wearer destroying the trinket "A Cheap Attempt at a Paradox Win" for A$ appears equally legal and illegal.
Initiator's Comments:
Game custom strongly supports the fact that conditional actions are allowed therefore when The Gingham Wearer posted the following message:

"This sentence is false.

If the first sentence of this message is true then I create a trinket valued at A$10 called "A Cheap Attempt at a Paradox Win" with a description as follows:

"It is a scroll reading as follows:

I very much doubt that this will work but I may as well give it a go, despite it being very cheap and nasty. If this gets through then we definitely need to change the rules. I can't actually see any reason why it shouldn't though, although I'll bet that if it gets judged true then it's almost certain to be appealed."


e would have created the trinket if the sentence "This sentence is false." was true. I'm sure I don't have to explain the liar's paradox to you lot but I will do anyhow. If the sentence is true then it must be false (it says it is) however if it is false then what the sentence says is true. Therefore it is impossible to determine whether or not the sentence is true. Therefore it is impossible to determine whether or not the trinket was created. If it was created then it can be destroyed, if it wasn't then it can't. Hence it appears equally legal and illegal to destroy the trinket.

Call For Judgement 549 - Mon 32 Mar 1998 00:38
Subject: *ping*ing
Initiator: Atilla the Pun
Judge: Rex Mundi (selected March 23, 1998, 12:35)
Judgement: FALSE
Appealed by Guy Fawkes


It is possible for the following text, delimited by quotation marks, to be a legal announcement that the Machine that goes *ping* has gone *ping*, if it is taken as the entire body of an e-mail message sent to the public forum:

"Today is Friday, the 21st day of July, and the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today. Since I have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* 1 time.


Initiator's Comments:
Game custom would seem to indicate a verdict of TRUE (and, as scholar, my life would by made easier if this were judged TRUE); however, the Machine rule (#1209) says in part:

>...It is the duty of the Scholar to inform the rest of Acka of this
>occurrence. He must do so by posting a public message with the form,
>"Today is Someday, the xth day of Month, and the Machine That Goes
>*ping* Has Gone *ping* today. Since I have been scholar, the Machine has
>gone *ping* n times." In the actual message, Someday, xth, and Month
>shall be replaced by the appropriate elements of the date of the *ping*
>which is being announced, and n shall be replaced by the number of times
>that the Machine has gone *ping* during the current Scholar's term. "

The above hypothetical message does not match the template given in the rule; no provision is made for either grammatical exceptions (i.e. 1st, 2nd as opposed to 1th, 2th) or anything in the message besides the announcement. Thus, a strict reading of the rules would seem to indicate a verdict of FALSE, unless I'm missing something (which is entirely possible).

Judge's Comments:
I think that 1st and 2nd would be probably acceptable as misspellings of 1th and 2th, but the message would not have the form given in the rules, so I do not believe it would be valid.

Appealer's Comments:

The Rule regarding the *ping* template does _not_ say that x should be replaced with the appropriate date element, but that xth should be replaced with the appropriate date element. The original Judge does not explain why e believes that constructs such as "1th" and "2th" are appropriate date elements in any sense of the word, much less more appropriate than the proper ordinal abbreviations "1st" and "2nd". In fact, it is my belief that structures such as 1th and 2th are so inappropriate that I would be ashamed to see anyone under the age of at least 17 exposed to such grammar -- surely, such abominations should only be allowed between consenting adults, and even then, only in the privacy of their own homes, and even then, such grammar should not be practiced in excess of twice a month.

Seriously though, 1st is the appropriate date element for the first day of the month, and as such, it replaces xth in the *ping* template. This should be judged TRUE.

Call For Judgement 550 - Sat 28 Mar 1998 13:53
Subject: CFJ 550
Initiator: Alfvaen
Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected Sat 28 Mar 1998 13:53 EST) (deadbeat)
2nd Judge: Hubert (selected April 5, 1998, 07:18)
3rd Judge: else...if (selected April 06, 1998, 08:15)
Judgement: FALSE


Serving as an Acting Officer counts for the purposes of determining whether one has received an edam.
Initiator's Comments:
I'm pretty sure about this, but I'd rather clear it up now just in case. (I just went through and recounted, and realized I'd skipped the Acting Officers before.)

Rule 611 states:

A player receives an edam if e has held five offices (not including Capital Offices) since the adoption of this rule, or the most recent destruction of a cheese of this type belonging to this player, or the players most recent impeachment; whichever is the most recent.

The question is whether an Acting Officer is "holding" an office. I believe that Rule 401 reads this way, since it refers with fair consistency to "holding a seat in an Acting capacity".

However, Section (vi)b) says "When a Player's Term expires, he is no longer considered to be holding the Office. The player performs the Office in an 'Acting' role until the Seat is filled..."

So the Rules are slightly ambiguous on the matter. (Whichever way it is decided, the CSRR should clear up Rule 401 so it's all one way or the other, methinks...)

Judge's Comments:
Alvaen answers his own question. Rule 401 explicitly says "he is no longer considered to be holding the Office."