Previous (581-595) - CFJ Index - Next (611-625)
Call For Judgement 596 - May 21, 1998
Subject: Crackfoo
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent May 20, 1998, 23:48)
Judge: J.M. Bear (selected May 21, 1998, 11:34)
Judgement: FALSE
Statement:
There exists a Player of Ackanomic named Crackfoo.
Initiator's Comments:
This is if I was unable to remove em despite my recent Rule 257 message. There is probably also a Player named Enigma if this is the case.
Judge's Comments:
Both Crackfoo and Enigma wanted to leave the game.
That should take precedence before anything else, being mentioned in Rule 101. The only reason for me judging this true would have been that Alfvaen faked these statements, which I really don't believe.
Call For Judgement 597 - May 19, 1998
Subject: Enlightenment
Initiator: JT (sent May 19, 1998, 15:28)
Judge: IdiotBoy (selected May 21, 1998, 14:42) (deadbeat)
Second Judge: Alfvaen
Judgement: TRUE
Statement:
JT, /dev/joe, Vynd, and Calvin N Hobbes are all Enlightened.
Initiator's Comments:
(as a small side note, this is within (just barely) the 14 day retroactivity limit, but I needed the previous CFJ's for my reasoning)
On May 5th, /dev/joe, Vynd, JT, and Calvin N Hobbes were burnt as witches under the then current (now defunct) text of Rule 670.
This was decided by CFJ 588, which although the statement only specified /dev/joe and Vynd certainly applied to all Senators at the time, not just those two.
Under the decision of the recent CFJ 594, all witches are heretics and thus the phrase burned as a witch in the version of rule 670 which was in effect at the time of the burning was sufficient to invoke the portion of rule 1307 which caused them to become Enlightened (and to each lose 10 points for that matter).
CFJ 594 is relevant since the text of 1307 has not changed in the tie frame being discussed by this CFJ although rule 670 has changed to remove the phrase which I believe triggered the Enlightenment.
Judge's Comments:
The statement of this is almost trivial, since, as K 2 pointed out, /dev/joe, Vynd, and Calvin N Hobbes were all enlightened before May 5th. However, since JT was not burned until May 20, 13:23, after JT submitted this CFJ, I guess I have to do some work after all, since this determines whether or not JT was actually burned as a witch on May 20, 13:23.
So, if JT was burned on May 5th, does this mean e was enlightened therefrom? The question here is, what exactly happens when one is burned as a witch? Or, rather, what is the process of "being burned as a witch"?
Rule 1307 states:
If the verdict is 'BURN THE WITCH!', the alleged witch shall be incinerated as a heretic, atop a huge bonfire that not only reduces em to eir component atoms, but also inspires righteous terror in all who see it. The witch shall then enter the Ackanomic Afterlife, and shall lose 10 points. That player is then said to be Enlightened.
JT's argument seems to be that the _entire paragraph_ describes what happens when one is burned as a witch(which I guess is equivalent to being incinerated as a heretic). To me, it seems more common-sensical that the first sentence only describes the actual process of being burned as a witch,
However, let's see if there's any prior game custom to the contrary...
Malenkai's reasoning for CFJ 317(which the Judge, Calvin N Hobbes, seemed to agree with)states that Enlightenment is not an attribute which is granted, but rather something maintained by the Rule which defines it, sort of like the title of Third Cat. If Rule 1307 were to be repealed, nobody would remain Enlightened(unless, of course, it were elsewhere defined in the Rules). In that case, the above-quoted paragraph of Rule 1307 includes a definition of being Enlightened--having been incinerated as a heretic, entered the Ackanomic Afterlife, and lost 10 points. (And not having called an unsuccessful Witchhunt on someone else, as Rule 1307 also states these days...) But I remain unconvinced that being burned as a witch by a Rule other then Rule 1307(or 1307.1, which explicitly says it uses the same process)necessarily results in the remainder of the process being carried out. (On the other hand, two later CFJ's do refer to Enlightenment as being an Attribute, so perhaps game custom has changed in that case...)
ThinMan's judgement of CFJ 318 also notes that "burning a witch" is not a defined action, but instead there are two states, "having been burned" or "not having been burned". So then the quoted paragraph may read as describing the effects of a transition into the "having been burned" state, which would lead to a judgement of TRUE.
Those are the only relevant CFJ's on the subject of burning witches and Enlightenment that I can find; as far as I can tell the Rules are still sufficiently similar that they still hold true.
So if it is the case that being burned as a witch is not an action, but causes one to change states from "not having been burned as a witch" to "having been burned as a witch", then I am forced to the conclusion that, as a result of having been changed from one state to the other, JT became Enlightened, lost 10 points, and was moved to the Ackanomic Afterlife.
However, as someone once said, "A conclusion is the place where someone got tired of thinking", and that may be the case here. Having RFCed this to rousing silence, I might as well rule this TRUE, and if anyone really cares to the contrary, then they can appeal it.
Call For Judgement 598 - May 23, 1998
Subject: Godfather
Initiator: Slakko (sent May 21, 1998, 15:06)
Judge: Wild Card (selected May 23, 1998, 17:04) (deadbeat)
Second Judge: Publius (selected Aug 2, 1998, 10:55)
Judgement: TRUE
Statement:
saaremaa is not the Godfather.
Initiator's Comments:
The player known as saaremaa was created at a time when there was no definition of Godfather in the rules. The only possible way saaremaa could have acquired the title is by transfer from the undead Malenkai. Yet the rule which enabled this transfer had the following text:
> {{
> This rule has precedence over all rules. If an Undead named Malenkai
> exists, that undead transfers all of its possessions to the author of the
> proposal that added this text to this rule, then that Undead is destroyed.
> }}
The Godfather, when it was defined by the rules, was an Office, and hence unowned regardless of who "held" it. As it was not owned, it could not be possessed, and could therefore not have been a possession of the undead Malenkai. Hence saaremaa could not have acquired it from the undead Malenkai, hence there is no way that saaremaa could have acquired it. So saaremaa is not the Godfather.
Judge's Comments:
At the time the user Malenkai left the game for the first time, Rule 254 stated that as part of the process of leaving the game:
"5) The player is removed from all Offices."
Since the Godfather was an office (when it existed), Malenkai must have been removed from that office when he left the game. Therefore, it could not later have been transferred to another player under any circumstances.
Call For Judgement 599 - May 23, 1998
Subject: Third Cat
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent May 22, 1998, 09:59)
Judge: Attila the Pun (selected May 23, 1998, 17:07)
Judgement:
Statement:
Robert Sevin is the Third Cat.
Initiator's Comments:
Rule 1142, "Reincarnating Into The Third Cat", states:
When a player starts playing for the first time, there are said to have never been reincarnated. For every two chronologically consecutive proposals made by certain player which have a difference of more than 200 in their number, then that player is said to have reincarnated once. The active player with the greatest difference in the number of two of their chronologically consecutive proposals is said the be the Passive Contemplator. The active player who has been reincarnated the most times is said to be the Third Cat.
However, the Rule doesn't seem to say what happens when two players have both been reincarnated the same number of times. And Robert Sevin and Calvin N Hobbes have both been reincarnated three times:
Robert Sevin: 522-1448, 1581-1843, 1843-2067 Calvin N Hobbes: 840-1279, 1329-1633, 2161-2634
So there is no "the" active player who has been reincarnated the most times, and hence no player should have the title.
(Unless, of course, I missed one of Robert Sevin's reincarnations...)
Judge's Comments:
Call For Judgement 600 - May 24, 1998
Subject: Weasel Words
Initiator: JT (sent May 23, 1998, 20:49)
Judge: The Gingham Wearer (selected May 23, 1998, 17:07)
Judgement: TRUE
Statement:
The words 'in a timely manner' are weasel words.
Initiator's Comments:
Like the recent weasel words 'as soon as humanly possible', these words do not provide a specific time frame for reporting score changes.
Judge's Comments:
Rule 205 is the only place in the rules I could find the phrase in the statement of the CFJ, other than the statement itself. The relevant bit from rule 205 is:
"c) Players, acting in their capacity as officers, must announce all score changes they are responsible for notification of in the order which they are made aware the occurrence. They must do so in a timely manner."
The question therefore must be, do the words in the statement of this CFJ refer to themselves or the part of rule 205? Now, rule 344 states:
"Any words which are vague, overly broad or obfuscate the intended meaning of a rule qualify as weasel words."
If we presume that the statement refers to rule 205 then I agree that the words are overly vague and hence should be weasel words. What if the words in the statement refer to themselves though? In that case I would argue that they are still weasel words since it is unclear whether they refer to themselves or the words in rule 205!
The upshot of this is that whilst I am obliged to judge this TRUE it does not necessarily mean that if JT submits a proposal to modify this bit of rule 205 and it passes then JT will gain the extra point and the title "Weasel Slayer". It doesn't mean he won't though, although I seem to recall there being some sort of game custom in examples like this that it should be the actual text in the CFJ's statement that should be considered weasel words which would mean he wouldn't. That is however beyond my jurisdiction as judge of this CFJ and I can't be bothered going back into the CFJ archives when I'm sure that a lot of the older players will be able to tell me straight off.
Call For Judgement 601 - May 24, 1998
Subject: Membership
Initiator: K 2 (sent May 24, 1998, 03:06)
Judge: J.M. Bear (selected May 24, 1998, 09:05)
Judgement: Retracted
Statement:
The Church of The Good Ballot Stuffer is not a member of Metamorph.
Initiator's Comments:
According to Rule 1301 (Church):
1. Church is a type of Organization
Thus the rules and restrictions governing organizational actions (Rule 1005) apply to a church unless they are overridden by Rule 1301. Rule 1301 continues on to enumerate the internal functioning of a church, specifically founding, membership, priesthood, internal church documents and entity distribution. Since the Founder is not granted autocratic power to approve other Organizational activities undertaken by the church outside of these categories a complete organizational action would be required.
On 01 May 1998 16:57:26 TGW suggested the following organizational action for The Church of the Good Ballot Stuffer:
>The Church of the Good Ballot Stuffer joins Metamorph.
At the time it was assumed that eir powers as founder would have caused this to happen automatically...
Since The Church of the GBS didn't announce its consent to join Metamorph the ensuing Organizational action to accept it failed according to Rule 1015 (More Than Human).
Call For Judgement 602 - May 24, 1998
Subject: CFCJ 163
Initiator: The Gingham Wearer (sent May 24, 1998, 11:30)
Judge: rufus (selected May 24, 1998, 11:33)
Judgement: FALSE
Statement:
A CFCJ numbered 163 has been issued.
Initiator's Reasoning:
I don't really care either way but we ought to know. If it has been then I need to select a cortex for it. If it isn't then I can write in the archives that it doesn't actually exist. It was the latter of 2 CFCJs accusing Hubert of Rampant exhibitionism and so should probably never have been issued according to section 10) of rule 710.
Judge's Reasoning:
710, section 10 clearly bars double jeoparday. CFCJ 161 charges Hubert with te same crime for the same action, so 163 is an impossible CFCJ.
Call For Judgement 603 - May 30, 1998
Subject: Playing With Fire
Initiator: Hubert (sent May 29, 1998, 17:20)
Judge: Atilla the Pun (selected May 30, 1998, 08:59)
Judgement:
Statement:
Neither Slakko nor Wild Card is Enlightened.
Initiator's Reasoning:
Well, in Slakko's case this is true by a CFJ submitted by emself, which established that Witchhunts cannot be called unless the offending text was stated explicitly. E called the Blackhunt against emself for stating
, which certainly does not explicitly contradict that black is a color. In other words, by eir own reasoning, interpretation is not a valid cause for a Witchhunt.
More generally, though, Slakko and Wild Card both attempted to get around the new Middle Ages restriction on Churches' use of Secret Labs by calling Black Witchhunts on themselves. I would argue that Rule 1307.1 does not allow this to happen. True, it states "Witchhunts may be called against .... using the same methods and results as described in Rule 1307..." which would seem to imply that Slakko and WC's actions were valid.
But R1307.1 also says that the "same methods and results" of R1307 must be used. R1307 does not allow a player to call a Witchhunt against emself; it states explicitly that "any other player" may start the Witchhunt. Ergo, Slakko and Wild Card called invalid Witchhunts, and never got burned. That's what they get for playing with fire.
Oh, and any judge who attempts to take advantage of my never having paid attention during grammar class and use the possibly incorrect substitution of "is" for "are" in the Statement of this CFJ as grounds for its dismissal will be met with the full force of my wrath.
Judge's Reasoning:
Call For Judgement 604 - Jun 01, 1998
Subject: Crash!
Initiator: JT (sent Jun 01, 1998, 11:44)
Judge: Ayla (selected Jun 01, 1998, 13:10)
Judgement: retracted
Statement:
Further play is impossible.
Initiator's Reasoning:
There are no rules in effect.
Call For Judgement 605 - Jun 01, 1998
Subject: Crash! (Part 2)
Initiator: /dev/joe (sent Jun 01, 1998, 13:20)
Judge: Pandora (selected Jun 01, 1998, 13:35)
Judgement: INVALID
Statement:
Nobody has ever successfully used action a) described in the first paragraph of Rule 999.
Reasoning:
This is thread 1 of my recent message, in which K 2's attempts to change the quoted phrase in R999 is not considered an attempt to change that phrase everywhere. The alternative is that K 2's first two attempts did succeed, changing "Spelling Bee" and "in the rules" to "by k 2" everywhere.
Judge's Reasoning:
None
Call For Judgement 606 - Jun 01, 1998
Subject: The other possible thing that could have crashed the game
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent Jun 01, 1998, 13:33)
Judge: JT (selected Jun 01, 1998, 13:38)
Judgement: FALSE
Statement:
Alfvaen has achieved a Winning Condition within the past week.
Initiator's Reasoning:
This is a Cycle-Win CFJ.
This relies on my score having become infinite back when that Proposal (2938?) by (then) The Gingham Wearer passed and added the non-self-deleting text to the bottom of Rule 340. If it was the case that only reason my last CWCFJ was denied was that my score surpassing the Magic Number had happened more than a week earlier, then I guess my score was infinite until ThinMan's Proposal 3090. And if my score was infinite at that point, then not only was my score set equal to the Magic Number, but I also achieved _another_ Winning Condition at the same time from P3090's own effects.
I still don't think I did, but it's still worth a try.
Judge's Reasoning:
First, the only question that needs to be answered is if at the time of the passage of P3090, alfvaen's score was in excess of 1000 points.
There are two ways that this could possibly be approached, and I believe that both of them yeild the same result (fortunately)
The first way to possibly approach this is via 'what happens with scoring'.
From rule 205, section 4 (Scoring Changes Based on the Content of an Adopted Proposal), ... it is deemed to have occured simultaneously with any changes mandated by rule 207 ... So, if it went infinite, it did so in that moment.
However, also from rule 205, this time from section 5,
If a score change is due to a rule or entity (e.g. Magic Potato), and a rule change is adopted that affects how that rule or entity causes score changes (including, but not limited to, destroying the entity), then no score changes are generated by that rule or entity for the adoption of the specific rule change in question. This paragraph has precedence over sections 2), 3) and 4) where there is a conflict. This rule defers precedence to R 313 where there is a conflict. [This is to handle the "Potato Paradox" when a Proposal passes to repeal the Magic Potato, or the 10th proposal passes that repeals the Brass Monkey, no scoring is generated by those entities for the proposal which passed.]
Now according to this, prior to the proposal which (supposedly) created the infinite score change, Rule 340 granted no score changes. With the passing of the proposal, that rule suddenly granted a score change, thus changing how that rule or entity causes score changes, therefore NO score changes occured by the adoption of that proposal. (in which case, all points for voting/anti-voting on that proposal never actually happened)
In this case, obviously the judgement is FALSE as the change to scores never occured.
[This is similar to the argument that Alfvaen presented that I would not get the 10 points for the recent Great Work proposal, and I believe it has merit]
Alternatively, one could look at other cases where a statement in the rules could have been taken to imply infinite application. The most relevant CFJ I found was CFJ 407 referring to Cow Town and that it could create an infinite number of such Hotels.
In that case, it was argued that the _intent_ of the rule was that it be applied only once. One might try to argue that this implies legislative intent has some power in the rules. However, looking through other CFJs, it seems to be the game custom that legislative intent was not what was meant there, but rather the intent based on the english meaning of the words.
In fact, according to CFJ 335, if a valid english wording of the rule makes sense, then intent of the proposal can and (in this case) was ignored.
To quote from the reasoning.
>The preamble does not require anything of players, and does not restrict >such birthday wishes, and while it may point to what might have been the >intent of this rule, I can only judge by the actual wording of the rule, >which, IMO, does not restrict Boon of the Ancient only to those players >who made their public wishes during the festivities.
The actual wording of the relevant portion of the rule in question is:
>{{The Gingham Wearer loses two points. Alfvaen gains two points. [He
>reminded me about the need to do this.]}}
Therefore, the meaning is obvious, The Gingham Wearer lost 2 points, and Alfvaen gained to points.
And regardless of the intent that this be an infinite action, it was not, and thus once again, this CFJ is judged FALSE.
There might in fact be other ways of approaching this CFJ, such as the one Vynd mentioned in the original CFJ, however, I feel the two I present above are sufficient to judge this FALSE.
Call For Judgement 607 - Jun 01, 1998
Subject: Crash! (Part 3)
Initiator: K 2 (sent Jun 01, 1998, 14:49)
Judge: JT (selected Jun 01, 1998, 16:00)
Judgement: FALSE
Statement:
A rule titled "Who Will Buy K 2" numbered 1351 exists.
Initiator's Reasoning:
Given that the following:
>I am using my powers as owner of The Quirpele of >Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis to change the phrase >"Spelling Bee" in rule 999 (The Quirpele of >Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis) to read "in the rules", >which as everbody knows is a legal acknomic name.
does not constitute a valid use of Rule 999.a then the following section of rule 999 was not invoked: Upon performing any of the above actions, the ... [Quirpele] ....teleports to another random player.
So at 01 Jun 1998 13:33:45 K 2 possessed the Quirpele and was able to use it to replace phrases in the rules. As a result of those changes rule 101 read in part: The rules and the game state may only be changed by K 2 as a public action.
Subsequent public actions by K 2 caused rule 1351 to be created.
Judge's Reasoning:
While there does exist a rule (or so I believe) with the title of 'Who will buy K 2', it is most certainly not rule number 1351.
I considered treating the rule number as a 'unambiguous' misspelling, but rejected that since the statement as written made sense even if it wasn't the statement that was intended.
If the statement had asked whether a rule titled 'Who will buy K 2' existed, I would have judged this TRUE based on the very persuasive arguments given by breadbox and posted on June 1st.
Call For Judgement 608 - Jun 01, 1998
Subject: This Dumb
Initiator: K 2 (sent Jun 01, 1998, 15:15)
Judge: JT (selected Jun 01, 1998, 16:40)
Judgement: FALSE
Statement:
On 1 Jun 1998 02:11:11 Hubert traded all of eir tradeable entities for A$1 from Mr. Tambourine Man.
Reasoning:
On Sat, 30 May 1998, Mr. Tambourine Man wrote:
>I also offer to trade A$1 of mine for all the >tradable entities belonging to anyone else.
On 1 Jun 1998 02:11:11 Hubert wrote:
>I accept Mr. Tambourine Man's A$1 and give em all of Slakko's tradeable >entities.
This can be interpreted as either: Hubert attempted to trade all of Slakko's tradeable entities for A$1, an impossible/illegal trade by rule 515, or Hubert accepted MTM's trade and _then_ attempted to give MTM Slakko's tradeable entities.
Judge's Reasoning:
As was pointed out by K2, there are two possible interpretations of the action as performed by Hubert.
According to rule 373, Public Actions:
>The rules may specify that certain possible courses of play are public >actions. Any active player may attempt any public action available to him >or her simply by sending a public message specifying the action to be >taken. However, if any information that is necessary to specify the >action fully and unambiguously is left out of that message, then the >attempt fails. [An attempt may also fail for other reasons.]
The action referenced in this CFJ was ambiguous because it could lend itself to two completely seperate interpretation depending on the meaning of the logical connective 'and'. Both readings are sensible in that they specify 'meaningful' sentances.
Since there was an ambiguity in the action, the attempted action did in fact fail according to rule 373.
Call For Judgement 609 - Jun 02, 1998
Subject: Paradox?
Initiator: Mr. Tambourine Man (sent Jun 02, 1998, 12:29)
Judge: Koxvolio (selected Jun 01, 1998, 12:30) (deadbeat)
Second Judge: Vynd
Judgement: FALSE
Statement:
The action of breadbox maintaining a copy of the rules in which rule 419.1 does not contain the text "currently internomic@muppetlabs.com" and no other copies appears equally legal and illegal.
Initiator's Reasoning:
This is a paradox win CFJ.
First I will note that this is an action that effects the game state and so can be a paradox win, because of rule 701.
The text quoted above was in proposal 3129, which was recently accepted. There are two ways it could be interpreted: either the text in notes brackets should be added to the rule; or the text in notes brackets is merely a note in the middle of a block of text. There is plenty of game custom that seems to indicate that either is possible. Therefore it is impossible to determine how the rule actually reads.
Rule 407.1 lists one of the duties of the rule-harfer (currently breadbox) as:
"a) To keep an accurate copy of the Rules of Ackanomic (known as the Official Rules Document), and to make the text of the Official Rules Document available to any player upon request."
Since it is not possible to know what the rules actually are, it is impossible for breadbox to definitely do this by maintaining only one copy of the rules.
Rule 701 states:
"Failure of an Officer to perform a Duty of an Office e holds is the Crime of Non-Performance. The act of performing a Duty incorrectly is the Crime of Malpractice."
Maintaining an incorrect copy of the rules would therefore be malpractice. Therefore if breadbox maintains just one copy, since there is a fifty percent chance of his copy being the right one there is also a fifty percent chance of him committing malpractice. Therefore the action in the statement appears equally legal and illegal.
Judge's Reasoning:
I have to disagree with the initiator's reasoning, where he claims that there is extensive support in game custom for not including notes in proposals in the rules that said proposals create. It does seem that note which were included at the begining or end of a proposal were, on occasion, not included as part of the text of any subsequent rule. I find no support, however, for the idea that a note contained within the middle of a section of text which is clearly defined to be a new rule, would mysteriously disappear. If I could find such custom, it would be wrong. For while the rules state that information contained within note brackets [] has no semantic meaning, thats a far cry from saying that it shoudl be treated as non-existant.
I also have to disagree that, even if everything I have said above is wrong, it would be equally legal and illegal for only the one copy of the rules to be maintained. It would either be legal, or it would be illegal. The fact that we cannot determine which of the two possibilities it would be does not mean it is both. Nor am I convinced that we couldn't determine with finality whether or not was legal or illegal, but as I am pressed for time, and such a determination is outside the scope of what this CFJ requires, I shall merely conclude by juding this FALSE.
Call For Judgement 610 - Jun 03, 1998
Subject: Wilds
Initiator: Hubert (sent Jun 01, 1998, 02:55)
Judge: Alfvaen (selected Jun 03, 1998, 11:51) (deadbeat)
2nd Judge: Slakko (selected Jun 18, 1998, 05:45)
Judgement: False
Statement:
The Order of the Razor Boomerang is in the Wilds of Ackanomia.
Initiator's Reasoning:
On Sun, 31 May 1998 20:39:33 -1000, Hubert (as e was then known) said "I suggest the Order of the Razor Boomerang go to the Wilds of Ackanomia and scream lyrical curses at the B-Ack. This, too, happens..." Since Hubert is the Founder of the Order of the Razor Boomerang, Church Policy allows em to specify that an Organizational Action may occur without the approval of the other members, and e did so. So the action, if legal, took place.
But was it legal? The Rules make no mention of whether or not Locations may contain Organizations; only players are specifically referred to. But the Rules do imply that other types of entities may be in certain Locations. Most notably, "Entities may not be transferred to and/or from Somewhere Else except whereas..." (R800), which clearly specifies that other types of Entities than Players may be Somewhere Else. No special or unique powers are granted to the Location known as Somewhere Else, therefore by induction we can assume that other Locations may also contain non-Player entities... such as Organizations.
Other examples of Rule-sanctioned nonplayer entities being in Locations are Buildings (defined by R839), although the wording of subsequent Rules seems to imply that Buildings, rather than being in Locations, _are_ Locations. (cf. "The Museum is a classy building...and a Common Location") Also, any kind of entity may be in the Treasury or the Museum, both of which either are or are contained in Locations.
So I really see no reason why this shouldn't occur. And, of course, it gives us a chance to recite poetry...
Judge's Reasoning:
The reasoning below was unfortunately submitted by Alfvaen to JT, rather than Slakko, who was really Acting CotC at the time. While the direction of the message was erroneous, the verdict was not, so I'll just repost Alfvaen's reasoning:
While I'm sure we would all like to find out whether or not Organizations can go to Locations, I'd rather clear up whether the action was attempted in the first place.
The initiator's reasoning claims that Church Policy can declare an Organizational Action to be one that the Founder can direct the Church to attempt without any input from the other members. Let's see what the Rules have to say on this.
Rule 1005, "Organizational Action", specifies the familiar method for an Organization to attempt actions, although it does defer to all Rules. Do the Church Rules allow 863-5937 to do as e claims?
The powers of Church Policy, under Rule 1301, seem to be as follows:
-- to constrain Church Members from performing certain Actions(or
otherwise committing Iconoclasm, except by omission).
-- to describe how Church Policy is changed.
-- to define seniority of Priests.
-- to define how decisions are made by the Priesthood.
-- to redefine Church membership policy.
-- to take the unilateral power to trade Church assets away from the
Founder(or give it to others as well).
And how does Rule 1301 state that Churches may take Actions? It is entirely silent on the matter!
So I fail to see that Rule 1301 really allows Church Policy to say anything about how, in general, Churches perform actions. Transferring Church assets, and admitting new members, perhaps, but nothing beyond that. Thus, I believe that the Order of the Razor Boomerang did not, in fact, attempt to move to the Wilds of Ackanomia.
So the whole question of whether or not the action could have succeeded is irrelevant to my verdict, and frankly I don't feel like struggling with the whole matter right now, so I'll leave it for a future judge.
Previous (581-595) - CFJ Index - Next (611-625)