Call For Judgement Archive (581-595)

Previous (566-580) - CFJ Index - Next (596-610)

Call For Judgement 581 - May 03, 1998
Subject: Mis-spelling
Initiator: The Gingham Wearer (sent May 03, 1998, 07:32)
Judge: Koxvolio (selected May 03, 1998, 07:30)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Proposal 2938 modified rule 340

Initiator's Comments:

It all depends on whether 34o can be accepted as an unambiguous spelling error for 340. In addition to the fact that 0 and o look very similar, they are also right next to each other on the keyboard. Perhaps the best bit of evidence that this did indeed do what I wanted it to is that rule 340 is the only rule in the 340s with a section VII. The relevant sections of rule 340 are this:

"I. The meaning of a word which is unambiguously misspelled will be the same as if the word had been spelled correctly.

II. Numbers shall be considered misspelled words for the purposes of the rules when it can be determined beyond reasonable doubt that a particular number is in error, and what the intended number is. The intended number is considered the correct spelling in this case. "

I think it can be determined beyond reasonable doubt which number I was intending. Therefore rule 340 was modified as I intended by proposal 2938.

Judge's Comments:

This is correct. Not only is it quite clear what TGW was talking about, but the rule has already been changed. Isn't that efficient of breadbox... :-)

Call For Judgement 582 - May 04, 1998
Subject: Weasels
Initiator: Slakko (sent May 03, 1998, 18:52)
Judge: The Gingham Wearer (selected May 04, 1998, 11:00)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

"as soon as humanly possible" in Rule 1240.12 are Weasel Words.

Initiator's Comments:

This is a Weasel Words CFJ. What does it mean for something to happen "as soon as humanly possible"? Does it require public knowledge? If I am working, not reading my mail, but with the capacity to bring up my newsreader and post a message within 5 minutes, does this mean I must do it within 5 minutes without knowing about it? The rules do not say. The rules give no indication as to the interpretation of this particular phrase, which is open to widely varying interpretation as to the exact timeframe it specifies.

Some interpretational questions: Does it refer to one particular human (one who is in a position to need to post the message) or to any human? Does it refer to each player having to post as soon as either is capable of doing so, or only when they themselves are capable? Does it allow for people to find out the need to post a message (it does not state that the player asked to post must know they have been asked)?

I therefore submit that the phrase quoted in the statement consists of Weasel Words.

Judge's Comments:

Essentially I agree with the initiator's reasoning. Specifically I notice that rule 344 states that:

"Any words which are vague, overly broad or obfuscate the intended meaning of a rule qualify as weasel words."

Since the initiator's has provided several different definitions then I think that it is reasonable to consider these words to be vague. They therefore satisfy the conditions for weasel words so I must judge this CFJ TRUE (well okay, I don't have to but it would be foolish of me to do otherwise).

Call For Judgement 583 - May 03, 1998
Subject: Nyarlathotep
Initiator: H*bert (sent May 03, 1998, 17:25)
Judge: IdiotBoy (selected May 04, 1998, 11:07) (declined)
Second Judge: Atilla the Pun (selected May 06, 1998, 16:22)
Judgement: TRUEP

Statement:

At least one instance of the word "Nyarlathotep" in Rule 594.23/0 (Blueprint: Nyarlathotep) other than the one in the scentence "There exists an optional Functional Office of Nyarlathotep." refers to either the functional office or the holder of it.

Initiator's Comments:

The blueprint states that: "Nyarlathotep is called granting Sanctuary of Salvation." This must either apply to the Monster or the Office. However if the office is known as Nyarlathotep then there may not _be_ a monster. In which case the scentence "If ever a player owns Nyarlathotep then e will achieve a winning condition. " must refer to the Office.

Judge's Comments:

As it is specified that a Frankenstein Monster "has it's [sic] own name", it seems reasonable to assume that FM's are indeed named entities, and that the name of Frankenstein Monster Nyarlathotep is indeed Nyarlathotep. The same sort of reasoning holds for the Functional Office of Nyarlathotep. Therefore, two named entities existed with the same name upon the creation of the FM monster. According to " ", this may not happen. Now, the provision within the rule--making any action which would select an illegal name for an object not happen--does not apply in this case; the name Nyarlathotep is selected at a time at which it is legal to do so. However, the rule causing Nyarlathotep to exist is, depending on one's reading, either the Gadget rule or the Frankenstein Monster rule, both of which are in the 500's, while " ", which forbids its existence, is in the 300's. Neither rule explicitly takes precedence over or defers to the other; therefore " " takes precedence and prevents Nyarlathotep from being created. Since nothing else exists to which "Nyarlathotep" might possibly refer, it follows that it refers to the Office; therefore, this CFJ is TRUE.

I will note that, despite this, the sentence mentioned in the initiator's reasoning does not cause anybody to recieve a winning condition; the Office of Nyarlathotep is unowned.

Call For Judgement 584 - May 04, 1998
Subject: Malenkai
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent May 03, 1998, 22:37)
Judge: The Gingham Wearer (selected May 04, 1998, 11:10)
Judgement: FALSE
Appealed by: saaremaa
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

There is currently a player with the Ackanomic name "Malenkai".

Initiator's Comments:

The Gingham Wearer and Slakko seem to be persuaded of this, so let me see if I can support their conclusion.

Malenkai posted the following message:

"I exist as described in Rule 252.

The following strings exist in this message as described by Rule 252:
saaremaa
Randy Hall
malenkai@itw.com

saaremaa
Speaker Emeritus
and little else :-)
who is oh so glad e used a treasure"

Rule 252, "Joining the Game", states, on the subject of Returning players:

   I. For the purposes of this rule, a player whose most recent departure
   from Ackanomic caused him or her to become an Undead that still exists
   is considered a Returning player. All other players are considered
   New.

Rule 250, "Registered Players", states:

   No matter how many times a person legally registers as a player in
   Ackanomic, that person is always considered the same player. [That is,
   if a player quits and later rejoins, he is considered the same
   player.]

Therefore it is indisputable, barring questions of email-address identity, that Randy Hall is the same player known as Malenkai. And thus e is eligible to become a Returning player. (Though e is not a Returning player until e is once again a player.)

Back to Rule 252:

   IV. A person able to join the game as a Returning player may do so by
   posting a public message to that effect. This message must include
   their Ackanomic and real life names, as well as a valid email address.
   The Registrar shall then record their return to the players list.

The ambiguity here is in the meaning of what "their" Ackanomic name is. So let's look at Rule 251, "Player Names":

   Every player has exactly one Ackanomic name. This name must be a
   string of name characters from two to twenty characters in length.
   Neither the first nor the last character in this string may be the
   space character. All official nomic business shall use this name to
   refer to that player.


   A player may change his Ackanomic name, so long as the new name
   complies with all applicable rules. The Registrar shall record and
   acknowledge each legal name change; a legal name change takes effect
   at the time of the Registrar's acknowledgement, at which time the
   player in question shall pay the standard Harfer Fee. When a player
   changes their Ackanomic name, all Ackanomic business will be changed
   to follow their new name.

Now, is Randy Hall a player? To return to Rule 250:

   A player is any person who is registered as a player. Players are
   named, unownable entities. No person may register as a player more
   than once concurrently. Anyone is allowed to observe the game and
   participate in discussion of any issue, but no person who is not a
   player may make a proposal, or vote on any proposal, or call for
   judgement, or judge, or score points, or win a cycle. No person who is
   not a player may hold office or have any tasks, duties or
   responsibilities within the game.

After Randy Hall left the game, e was not a player, but an Undead. This state of affairs holds until Randy Hall is once again a registered player. The Rules are silent on the issue of Ackanomic names of non-player entities, except that by Rule 348, " ":

   No named entity may have a name that matches a former name of any
   current or former player, except that a player may change his name to
   match one that he previously held.


   This Rule defers to other Rules on the matter of whether it is
   permissible for a returning Player to choose, as eir Ackanomic name,
   the same name as an Undead.

I note that it does not seem to be possible for an Undead to possess an Ackanomic name which matches that of a former player, since Rule 258, "Undead", is silent on the subject, and Rule 348 makes no special provisions. So it appears that in the following section of Rule 252:

   V. Upon the registration of a Returning player, the following
   procedure takes place:

   1) The Undead with that player's Ackanomic name changes from an Undead
   to a player.

This does not work, since it is patently illegal for an Undead with any player's Ackanomic name to exist.

My conclusion, then, is that it may or may not have been possible for Randy Hall to have joined under the Ackanomic name "saaremaa" as opposed to eir former Ackanomic name of "Malenkai". I find it also highly likely that despite eir own assertion, saaremaa(or Malenkai) is not Speaker Emeritus, this being a title bestowed upon a Undead named "Nameless Thing #N" for some integer N that, as Undead-Harfer, I really don't feel like working out right now.

Judge's Comments:

Rule 256 has this (amongst other things) to say about what happens when a player leaves the game:

"7) The player ceases to be a player and becomes an Undead. "

I don't think that anyone disputes the fact that Randy Hall (then Malenkai) previously left the game (in fact I seem to recall numerous CFJs on the matter without any well defined CotC, which wasn't pretty) and so according to this rule the player Malenkai should have become an undead.

Rule 348, however, states this:

"No named entity may have a name that matches a former name of any current or former player, except that a player may change his name to match one that he previously held."

Since rule 258 states:

"There exists the class of named, unownable entities known as the Undead."

we seem to have a problem. Since the rule for leaving the game doesn't detail any name change then we must presume that the undead would still be called Malenkai. This is where our first problem arises.

Back to rule 348:

"An attempt to do anything that requires a name to be chosen [such as creating a Trinket or Organization] fails if the chosen name matches a name already in use."

I note that this specifies only when a name *is chosen*, so rule 256 succeeds in creating the undead since no names change and neither rule 348 nor 256 has anything to say about precedence. The undead Malenkai existed, albeit illegally. (It has been ruled before illegal things such as this can happen, Malenkai being Justice and Senator and Vulcan owning a scroll of crumble for example).

That brings us on to rule 252:

"I. For the purposes of this rule, a player whose most recent departure from Ackanomic caused him or her to become an Undead that still exists is considered a Returning player. All other players are considered New. "

Since Malenkai was inducted into the hall of elders his undead will not decompose and therefore still exists hence Randy Hall would seem to have been a returning player.

However, rule 250 states:

"A player is any person who is registered as a player."

I believe we therefore have a problem. Nobody can be considered a returning player because of the unfortunate use of the word player instead of person (Randy Hall was not "a player whose most recent departure from Ackanomic caused him or her to become an Undead that still exists" because he was not a player).

Since Alfvaen (the Registrar) has not posted a public message announcing Randy Hall as a new player (which is the procedure necessary for a New player joining the game) the only conclusion I can reach is that Randy Hall is not a player in Ackanomic at all. This brings with it the problem that his proposals were never submitted and the appeal of the CFJ he made never happened. Such is life, I'm afraid.

Appealer's Comments:

[none]

Supreme Court's Comments:

It is agreed that the undead created when Malenkai left the game already had the name Malenkai, and thus there was no naming step for R348 to trigger on, so the undead had the name Malenkai despite it being illegal for it to do so.

TGW wrote, referring to R252 section I:

>There are no circumstances where anyone can both be a player and have an
>undead that still exists. Therefore nobody can be a Returning player. Player
>is specifically defined by the rules so I don't think that interpreting it to
>mean person can be done.

In the circumstances in which saaremaa joined the game, it is possible for someone to be a player and have an undead that still exists. Read on for an explanation why this actually happened in this case, and in a way happens in every case.

So now, we look back to (what was then) R252 to see how he can do it:

>  IV. A person able to join the game as a Returning player may do so by
>  posting a public message to that effect. This message must include
>  their Ackanomic and real life names, as well as a valid email address.
>  The Registrar shall then record their return to the players list.

Again, we must interpret "their Ackanomic [name]" to mean the name he wishes to join under, since before he joins he has no Ackanomic name. We have allowed far too many players to return to the game for this to *not* be game custom; we even allowed Atilla the Pun to rejoin as Attila the Pun!

Also note that he may join the game as a returning player, merely by sending this message! Section V (quoted below) doesn't make the player wait until this stuff happens before he can become a player. Therefore, Randy Hall joined as a returning player named saaremaa.

Now, then, the other important part:

>V. Upon the registration of a Returning player, the following procedure
>takes place:
>
>1) The Undead with the Ackanomic name provided by the person who is
>returning to the game changes from an Undead to a player.

No Undead had the name saaremaa, so this step failed. Therefore, the Undead Malenkai still existed after this, while player saaremaa also existed. Regardless, saaremaa got his possessions back from the Undead Malenkai in P2988.

Also note that in every case of a returning player joining the game, for an instant between the time he sends his returning message and the time the above section V procedure is carried out, both the player and the Undead exist.

It has been game custom for a long time that section V.1 does what it is supposed to -- that is, it turns the undead into the same player who just registered, rather than another player with the same name. In this case, we have two interpretations which both seem farfetched in different ways, so it seems reasonable to me to keep using the one which we have clearly been using for quite some time, the game's customary interpretation.

Call For Judgement 585 - May 04, 1998
Subject: Malenkai part 2
Initiator: Slakko (sent May 04, 1998, 07:32)
Judge: Joe Java (selected May 04, 1998, 11:12) (declined)
Second Judge: H*bert (selected May 06, 1998, 16:19)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

The player whose Real Name is Randy Hall has an Ackanomic Name of Malenkai.

Initiator's Comments:

As Rule 252 requires a player returning who is an undead to register with that name (otherwise they do not become a player), Randy Hall could not have become a player known as saaremaa without paying the Standard Harfer Fee to change eir name. Therefore, eir name is Malenkai.

Judge's Comments:

Assuming that there currently is a player whose Real Name is Randy Hall, Slakko's Reasoning seems to me to be correct.

Call For Judgement 586 - May 04
Subject: Auction
Initiator: /dev/joe (sent May 04, 1998, 11:10)
Judge: rufus (selected May 05, 1998, 14:44) (deadbeat)
Second Judge: Alfvaen
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

JT won the auction for the first Scroll of Crumble /dev/joe created after becoming Inventor.

Initiator's Comments:

It depends on whether H*bert's bid is valid. He wrote:

> If it is still going on I bid A$50 for the Scroll of Crumble.
> Unless that is too small in which case I bid the smallest bid I can make
> for it.

At the time, the high bid was A$55 by JT. The auction ended after H*bert made the bid above, and before any other bid was made, regardless of the validity of this bid.

Judge's Comments:

I'm leaving for another CFJ the question of whether or not /dev/joe became Inventor. This CFJ's statement is null in that thread. Here I will assume that /dev/joe did become Inventor.

The Auction began at Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:28:16 EDT.

Valid bids:
H*bert, A$1: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:41:13 EDT.
Vynd, A$5: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:42:50 EDT.
H*bert, A$7: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:46:42 EDT.
JT, A$15: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:09:50 EDT.
Rex Mundi, A$25: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 14:37:35 EDT.
JT, A$28: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 14:52:50 EDT.
Pandora, A$31: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 05:05:07 EDT.
JT, A$35: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:05:18 EDT.
Rex Mundi, A$50: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 13:53:05 EDT.
JT, A$55: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 13:57:44 EDT.

H*bert's final bid attempt was made at Fri, 1 May 1998 05:04:05 EDT. This was less than three days after the beginning of the auction, so it is not disqualified on that account.

> If it is still going on I bid A$50 for the Scroll of Crumble.
> Unless that is too small in which case I bid the smallest bid I can make
> for it.

So the question is, is this a disqualified bid of A$50, or a conditionally- phrased but still valid bid of A$61?

Let's take a look at Rule 373, "Public Actions".

The recently-added last sentence of the first paragraph states "Referring to information contained in other documents or data sources does not constitute including that information in the message." Now, it assuredly takes information from other documents or data sources to find out what the last bid was(and possibly, even given that, what the smallest legal bid in that case would be, though referring to the Rules might still be allowed). So the conditional bid was invalid by Rule 373, and JT's bid of A$55 was the highest.

Call For Judgement 587 - May 05, 1998
Subject: Nyarlathotep
Initiator: Hubert (sent May 04, 1998, 18:45)
Judge: Pandora (selected May 05, 1998, 15:41) (deadbeat)
Second Judge: Alfvaen (sent to Supreme Court)
Cortex: /dev/cortex (/dev/joe and Mr. Tambourine Man)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

There exists a Frankenstein Monster known as Nyarlathotep.

Initiator's Comments:

Slakko's claim is that this would be FALSE because the creation of Nyarlathotep (hereafter N)'s Blueprint instantiated the optional Functional Office of N, and then later on when the Monster N would have been created, its name conflicted with that of the Office by Rule 348, and hence the creation failed.

My argument would be as follows:
R348 states that "An attempt to do anything that requires a name to be chosen [such as creating a Trinket or Organization] fails if the chosen name matches a name already in use." The creation of the Monster N did not require a name to be chosen, for its name was chosen long ago when Rex Mundi announced that e was trolling for Blueprint submissions. So the creation of the Monster succeeded with the same name as the Office, and since the names conflict, R348 requires that the CSRR choose a legal name for one of them, and that the Blueprint be updated to fix this.

Note that if CFJ 583 is judged TRUE, all instances of "Nyarlathotep" in the Blueprint must be changed to the new name of the Office, whereas if it is judged FALSE, only the one in the sentence "There exists an optional Functional Office of Nyarlathotep." must be changed. Assuming, of course, that the CSRR (who is also, coincidentally, the judge of CFJ 583) chooses to change the name of the Office instead of the name of the FM.:

Judge's Comments:

I am using my privilege as Praetor to send CFJ 587 to the Supreme Court. I don't even want to _touch_ this one. I apologize in advance.

First, either the Frankenstein Monster attempted to name the monster 'Nyarlathotep', or else the naming clause in that rule does not make Frankenstein Monsters actually be named entities. In the latter case, Frankenstein Monsters don't have names, and so there could not be a Frankenstein Monster known as Nyarlathotep in any case. The rest of this reasoning concerns the former case.

By R348, it was illegal for the Frankenstein Monster Nyarlathotep and the office Nyarlathotep to have the same name, but R348 only prevents the creation of entities when the name is *chosen* illegally. The name 'Nyarlathotep' was legally chosen months earlier when Rex Mundi began construction of the FM discovery.

However, by R500.1, when a named entity is created, it is given a name in accordance with the Rules, and, if the rules do not specify any other method for determining its name, or the method chosen does not give a legal name, that entity shall be considered nameless until a name is legally assigned to it. The FM rule did here attempt to name the FM illegally, so it remains nameless, and then a later part of R500.1 gives it a 'Nameless Thing #X' name for some X.

In either case, there is no Frankenstein Monster known as Nyarlathotep.

Call For Judgement 588 - May 07, 1998
Subject: Burnings
Initiator: Slakko (sent May 07, 1998, 03:00)
Judge: K 2 (selected May 07, 1998, 12:57)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

/dev/joe and Vynd were both burned on Tuesday 5th May.

Initiator's Comments:

Rule 670, section 1) says:
1) Upon the end of a cycle which exceeded 30 days in length, or as otherwise directed by the rules, The "Commission d'Arts" (Commission) shall begin session, which shall last for 7 days. The Senators shall be the Commissioners, thus composing this body. Exception: The Commission shall not be called if it has been less than 60 days since any previous one has been called.

The most logical way to interpret the last sentence, starting "Exception:", is that it attempts to describe a way in which the Commission d'Arts is not started. The only way this can happen is if we interpret "been called" as meaning the same as "began session", and "be called" as "begin session". Otherwise the last sentence has no effect, which is the wrong meaning to give it when there is an equally reasonable meaning which does have an effect (in accordance with game custom).

Rule 670, section 4) says:
4) If the Commission fails to produce the report within the constraints of this rule, or if the Commission has not produced the report within 4 days since it was called, then after a 4 day grace period (to allow the members of the Commission to dwell on what they have done) every member of the Commission will be burned as a witch and have their score reduced by 2 points.

The commission produced eir report on Sunday 3rd May or Monday 4th of May. However, the Commission began session on Monday 27th April. Hence, if "begin session" and "be called" are synonymous for the purposes of this rule (as interpreted in section 1, for example), then, as the report was not produced before Saturday 2nd May, the Commission had not produced the report within 4 days of it "being called", and hence on Tuesday 5th of May (8 days after the last cycle ended and forced the Commission to begin session) every member of the Commission was burned as a witch.

/dev/joe and Vynd were both Senators at the time the last Cycle ended, and have not lost eir Seats since, so both of them were members of the Commission, and so both were burned on Tuesday.

Judge's Comments:

The Collins Thesaurus I happen to have open in front of me lists the synonyms of call as announce, appoint, declare, ordain, among others. It seems pretty clear that the first sentence of Rule 670 announces the Commission d'Arts and the second appoints the senators to it. The fact that the third sentence actually states "be called" would cement in the idea that the previous two sentences have been doing just that. So it is certain that the Commission d'Arts "was called" at the end of the cycle. Since its results were produced latter than May 2nd the entire senate was burned as a witch (or at least its members were). I hope the senates ashes will forget Acka's hastiness in this matter.

Call For Judgement 589 - May 07
Subject: More ****ing Nyarlathotep
Initiator: Slakko (sent May 07, 1998, 03:00)
Judge: Rex Mundi (selected May 07, 1998, 12:57)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

H*bert holds the Functional Office of Nyarlathotep.

Initiator's Comments:

Rule 594.23 says:
There exists an optional Functional Office of Nyarlathotep.
Slakko called for nominations for this office, and selected H*bert to hold it. E has not since resigned or been impeached. Therefore, H*bert holds the Functional Office of Nyarlathotep.
This is a blindingly obvious CFJ, but apparently it has to be submitted before H*bert will be paid for the month.

Judge's Comments:

[none]

Call For Judgement 590 - May 11, 1998
Subject: The Menace
Initiator: breadbox (sent May 11, 1998, 03:52)
Judge: The Gingham Wearer (selected May 13, 1998, 17:35)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Rule 1135, "The Orange Menace", has been repealed.

Initiator's Comments:

I think I already know what the verdict will be, but I'm tired of always having to make these kinds of unilateral judgement calls. I want an official opinion.

The final sentence of Rule 1135 states: "If it should be the case that every member of the Rebellion has exercised eir privilege once, this Rule shall repeal itself." There is now no such organization as the Rebellion, thus "every member of the Rebellion" is the empty set. So: is it true that every member of the empty set has exercised eir privilege exactly once?

Judge's Comments:

There are no members of the rebellion. Therefore there are no members of the rebellion who have not exercised the privilege. Therefore all members of the rebellion have exercised their privilege.

However no members of the rebellion have exercised their privilege because there are no members of the rebellion.

Now, I am by no means an expert on set theory but I think that the first interpretation sounds at least as reasonable, if not more so, and since spirit of the game seems to favour the first interpretation that is how I shall judge. Therefore the rule in question has been repealed.

Call For Judgement 591 - May 11, 1998
Subject: Learning Lessons
Initiator: Pandora (sent May 11, 1998, 08:03)
Judge: Ayla (selected May 13, 1998, 17:40)
Judgement: TRUE
Appealed by: Slakko (May 16, 1998)
Cortex: The Entity Formerly Known as the Supreme Court (assigned May 18, 1998)
Cortex: /dev/cortex, (reassigned July 20, 1998)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

TGW has not learned eir lesson.

Initiator's Comments:

My reasoning is illustrated by the following quoted message:

>:Ahem. Despite what the player/entity page may or may not say I have in fact
>:learned my lesson. Check the BPH logs if you don't believe me. Whilst
>:discussing BPHs I also note that ;) is not a rule recognised smiley. I
>:unlearned my lesson the first time by calling a BPH on Slakko for a similar
>:smiley (you people really should be paying a bit more attention :-)
>:
>:TGW (making the most of this :-).

regardless of what the rules may say, e has quite clearly not learned eir lesson (I am CCing this CFJ to the main list, since TGW is COTC -- not that I'm suggesting e might 'forget' to process this CFJ or anything)

Judge's Comments:

The most recent information I could find about this subject was that TGW unlearned eit lesson on Feb 23 12:52 EST. Therefore, I judge Pandora's statement TRUE.

Appealer's Comments:

The Bracket/Smiley Pedantry Hearing Archive clearly lists the following information:

BPH 105: Called by Hubert on The Gingham Wearer on Fri, 13 Mar 1998.

Message in question:

> Crusader. I still think I'm eligible for a cheese though (and had already
> pointed this out to Alfvaen :-) though, because I have held five offices

Results: The Hearing voted 1-0 for "It was obviously in violation!" at Sun, 22 Mar 1998 23:37:54 -0500

As a result of this Hearing, The Gingham Wearer once again Learned Eir Lesson. The Gingham Wearer has not called a BPH since, and hence could not have lost the fact that he has Learned Eir Lesson.

Hence TGW has learned eir lesson.

Supreme Court's Comments:

The appealer's reasoning is correct, and once the correct web page with the updated data on it was presented, there was no doubt.

There was an issue as to whether the CFJ should be judged invalid instead, since it refers to the player by an abbreviated form of his name, but the past logic used to do this, e.g. in CFCJ 146, is based on the precise form of the statement mandated by the CFCJ rule, or similar language in the CWCFJ rule. The general Ackanomic usage is less strict than this, and anything which unambiguously identifies a player can be considered to refer to him, but such things are simply *not* the player's name.

The original judge should have tried harder to find the relevant web page, and so gets a 5 point penalty.

Call For Judgement 592 - May 12, 1998
Subject: Chess
Initiator: J.M. Bear (sent May 12, 1998, 11:09)
Judge: Rex Mundi (selected May 13, 1998, 17:44) (declined)
Second Judge: Hubert
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

When a winner of a game of Party Chess is declared by Rule 1230.40, the current game of Party Chess ends, and a new game of Party Chess begins.

Initiator's Comments:

Although Party Chess has no official game counter, the title "Winner of a game of Party Chess" expresses that the game of Party Chess ended. Since playing Party Chess goes on, a new game of Party Chess has begun. The game of Party Chess which is an unownable entity probably includes all of Party Chess.

The rules may need a change to further clarify this, but if one plays and wins a game of Monopoly, this doesn't change the ownership of the game hardware, or the copyright. Likewise, anything which suggests that more than one game of Party Chess exists, refers to the gameplay between two consecutive Winner declarations by Rule 1230.40, not to the entity itself protecting rules, game state and gameplay.

Judge's Comments:

Honestly, I have no idea what the relevance of the second paragraph is (or, for that matter, the relevance of the entire CFJ). I don't think any interpretation of "Winner of a game of Party Chess" can possibly be construed to mean that Slakko has taken possession of the game of Party Chess. However, R1230.40 resets the round counter to a multiple of 50 greater than the current round upon a winner's being declared, which would seem to me to imply that the fresh start is merely a part of the same game. Perhaps this does need to be fixed for some reason, but I personally can see no problem with it as is; if there is a problem, it escapes my poor brain.

Call For Judgement 593 - May 16, 1998
Subject: Infinite Loop?
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent May 16, 1998, 16:21)
Judge: J.M. Bear (selected May 16, 1998, 17:00)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Alfvaen has achieved a Winning Condition within the past week.

Initiator's Comments:

This is a Cycle Win CFJ.

I believe that my score is infinite, since it is being constantly increased by two points.

Here is the text of Proposal 2938, which was accepted at Sat, 2 May 1998 19:55:21 EDT:

> Proposal 2938 - Sat 25 Apr 1998 08:31 EDT
> Theatre Monkeys
> The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)

> This is a modest proposal.

> Modify section VII of rule 34o to read:

> "VII. Alphabetical ordering shall be determined by a word-by-word
> comparison, each word compared letter-by-letter. For these purposes: A word
> is considered to be delimited by whitespace; an initial word 'The' or 'the'
> is ignored; a single string of digits is considered equivalent to a letter;
> digital 'letters' precede alphabetical letters; accented letters come
> immediately after the unaccented form of the letter; and non-alphanumeric
> characters are ignored (excluding whitespace used for the purpose of
> delimiting words, which counts only for this purpose); and case is ignored.
> All else failing, two words that are otherwise equivalent shall be sorted
> in ASCII collation order.

> {{The Gingham Wearer loses two points. Alfvaen gains two points. [He
> reminded me about the need to do this.]}}

A prior CFJ determined that "34o" was an unambiguous misspelling of "340".

From, ironically enough, Rule 340 itself, comes the text:

  III. When text is specified as delimited, the end of the document in
  question serves as an ending delimiter if an ending delimiter is
  otherwise missing.  Delimiters do not nest, except when the double
  quote character is used as a delimiter.  Text delimited by double
  quotes is known as a string.

Now, P2938 does not specifically state that the replacement text for Rule 340 is delimited by double quotes, but I think that since it is unlikely that the Rule-Harfer put the leading quote into the new text of Rule 340, it is to be implicitly considered as being delimited. The absence of another double-quote character in P2938 results in the end of the document in question serving as an ending delimiter. So the entire text of the last two paragraphs, including the double-brace- enclosed text at the end, is added to Rule 340.

Now, Rule 340 also states:

  V. Text in rules other than this one, delimited by double curly braces
  {{e.g. this}}, is self-deleting text.

So any double-brace-enclosed text in Rule 340 is _not_ self-deleting, _including that added by Proposal 2938_.

Now what we have is a Rule which states, at the end:

{{The Gingham Wearer loses two points. Alfvaen gains two points. [He reminded me about the need to do this.]}}

What happens when a Rule states that a player gain two points, unconditionally? Does it mean that those two points are gained only once, and then never again? Let's take this in stages.

If a rule states "Alfvaen gains two points whenever a harfy Proposal passes", does it mean that those two points are gained when the harfy Proposal passes, and then taken away when it is not the case that a harfy Proposal is passing? I don't think anyone would take that point of view. Think of it instead the following block of pseudocode:

If (harfy proposal passes) then
Alfvaen's score = Alfvaen's score + 2

In general, we can think of "Alfvaen gains two points when CONDITION" as being

If (CONDITION) then
Alfvaen's score = Alfvaen's score + 2

So what does it mean when CONDITION is missing? Well, what is the difference between "I have wet hair" and "I have wet hair when it is raining"? In the first case, the condition is _always true_. The first sentence is equivalent to "I have wet hair when 1=1", or any other tautology. Therefore, "Alfvaen gains two points" means "Alfvaen gains two points when 1=1", or

If (1=1) then
Alfvaen's score = Alfvaen's score + 2

But how often is this conditional evaluated? I would hold that it happens an infinite number of times per second, because one can, for instance, undertake two actions at the same time(in the same message), both of which yield points, possible from the same Rule.

Therefore, since the passage of Proposal 2938, I have been gaining two points an infinite number of times per second, so my score can no longer be expressed without using Aleph notation. Obviously, Aleph-null is greater than 419, so my score exceeds the Magic Number, and I have attained a Winning Condition.

(The Gingham Wearer's score, meanwhile, is continually cycling through all the even numbers between 20 and -60...)

I promise that if I win the Cycle through this means, I will donate the infinite amount of money I receive at the end of the Cycle back to the Treasury. :-)

Vynd's Bronze Torch Comments:

I believe there are a number of problems with Alfvaen's reasoning and statement.

One important question is when, exactly, did Alfvaen achieve a Winning Condition. Proposal 2938 was accepted about two weeks ago. If the rest of Alfvaen's reasoning is correct, then his score shot up to infinity immediately, putting him over the Magic Number. To me, this would seem to be when Alfvaen achieved a Winning Condition. Since it was more than a week ago, and there is no indication that Alfvaen has achieved a winning condition in the past 7 days through some other means, this CFJ should be judged FALSE.

I also disagree, however, as to what happened when Proposal 2938 passed. Alfvaen claims that the entire text of the proposal following the first double-quote mark was amended to Rule 340. He states in his reasoning that because there was a double quote mark at the begining of the third paragraph, the following text was being delimited by double-quotes.

Does that one double quote sign mean that all following text was being delimited by double quotes? I believe not. Rule 340 does mention double quotes in section III (quoted by Alfvaen) as something which can serve as a delimiter, even a special kind of delimiter. Nowhere does it say that double quotes appearing in proposals are always delimiters. As with all other rule sanctioned delimiter symbols, there are two ways to tell if a double quote is serving as a delimiter. One way is if a section of text is enclosed within a pair of the symbols, as the examples for curly braces and square brackets later in Rule 340 demonstrate. The other way, as section III describes, is "When text is SPECIFIED as delimited," (emphasis mine) in which case a missing end symbol would mean all text up until the end of the proposal being delimited.

Is any of the text in Proposal 2938 surrounded by double quotes? No. Is any of the text in Proposal 2938 specified as being delimited by double quotes? No. Therefor, none of the text in proposal 2938 is delimited by double quotes, the single double quote symbol at the begining of paragraph 3 has no special meaning (but should be included in Rule 340). Thus Proposal 2938 was a proposal listing three one time effects: An amendment to Rule 340 described in paragraph three, a 2 point score loss for The Gingham Wearer, and a 2 point score gain for Alfvaen.

Judge's Comments:

I'm currently too stupid to judge all of Alfvaen's reasoning, so I'll just comment on two points:

First, the CFJ came more than a week after Alfvaen was supposed to get an infinite score. Therefore, e might get the points, if the part

with Alfvaen gaining points is in the rules, but fails to get the winning condition. That is, if the CFJ didn't arrive at the CotC more than 14 days after proposal 2938 applied changes to Rule 340 - it arrived more than 14 days after the Voting Period on 2938 ended.

Call For Judgement 594 - May 16, 1998
Subject: Heretics
Initiator: JT (sent May 16, 1998, 01:56)
Judge: Slakko (selected May 17, 1998, 07:21)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

A witch is a heretic.

Initiator's Comments:

Within rule 1307, 'Ackanomic Middle Ages' there are references both to witches and heretics, and they are used semi-interchangebly.

A prime example of this is the last paragraph where it refers to saving a witch from burning, or saving a heretic. This implies some sort of equivalence between the two states.
Also in the second paragraph, the alleged witch is burnt as a heretic. The next sentance refers to them as a witch, no longer as an alleged witch, but as a witch, because they have now been burnt. The act of burning the alleged witch made them a heretic and also a witch.
Now in 1307.1, it refers to an alleged heretic and treats it as the same as an alleged witch as per 1307. Therefore by this rule as well a witch is equivalent to a heretic.

Judge's Comments:

The rules only describe players as witches in two instances. The first of these is in rule 1307, where players are referred to as "alleged witches" when they have a Witchhunt called against them, and "witches" when the verdict of the witchhunt is against them.
Rule 1307.1 refers to Witchhunts being conducted in the same manner.

Either way, the rules only refer to players as witches when a Witchhunt has returned a verdict of "BURN THE WITCH!" against them. For this to have taken place, they must either have referred to the earth being round, or contradicted the fact that black is a color. The first of these two acts is Heresy, the second is Black Heresy.

Nothing in the rules defines when a player actually qualifies as a Heretic. Some rules refer to players being "burned as a Heretic", but that does not automatically imply that they are, in fact, Heretics (they could have been burnt mistakenly, after all). So I will go by the English definition - a heretic is someone who commits heresy. As to be called a witch you must have committed Heresy or Black Heresy, to be a witch you must already be a Heretic.

Thus all witches are Heretics. Hence the statement is TRUE.

Call For Judgement 595 - May 17, 1998
Subject: Dispensations
Initiator: JT (sent May 17, 1998, 10:31)
Judge: Hubert (selected May 17, 1998, 12:09)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Rule 1020 has not been amended by SPAM.

Initiator's Comments:

On Sun, 17 May 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

>The list of Dispensations (as defined in Rule 1020) is not listed as an
>entity, anywhere.
>
>I add the following SCAM-delimited item to the end of the Dispensations
>List:
>
>SCAM
>Society for the Prevention of Ackanomic Misdemeanours: Amend any Rule in
>the Rules of Ackanomic.
>SCAM
>
>Nothing prevents this, and the list of Dispensations is not an entity, 
>so this happens.
>
>Why do I feel that we might soon see a Rule 1151 along the lines of "SPAM
>once ruled Ackanomic..." coming along?

I'm actually not 100% convinced that this works.
I don't dispute that the text above got added to the dispensation list for starters, however, I don't believe that it can be used once there.

According to rule 101 'Actions described in the rules may only be performed, and shall only have those effects, as specified by the rules.'

Now the question is whether 'amending a rule' is an action defined by the rules, if not, it's unregulated, and I can go an perform it right now.

Therefore the action of 'amending a rule' is regulated by the rules and can only be informed in accordance with the rules.

All the dispensation list does is allow any action to be peformed by an organization as an organizational action. It certainly doesn't allow one to perform an otherwise regulated action unless the other criterion for that action are also met. IE, if an action specified it could only be performed by a player, I don't believe the dispensation list would allow that action to occur.

Therefore the action is on the list, but when the org attempts to perform the action, it runs up against the fact that the action is regulated by the rules and thus it does not occur.

Given the above reasoning, I don't see how the action of amending rule 1020 was carried out :)

As a good counter-example, if I (assuming the 1020 amendment didn't occur) had added the line of 'Order of the Razor Boomerangs: aquire A$1000 from the treasury' to the dispensation list, then it wouldn't work since the transfer of money to and from the treasury is well regulated by the rules.

Previous (566-580) - CFJ Index - Next (596-610)