Previous (611-625) - CFJ Index - Next (641-655)
Call For Judgement 626 - June 21, 1998
Subject: Extinct Offices
Initiator: K 2 (sent June 21 1998, 10:30 Acka)
Judge: Slakko (chosen June 22 1998, 03:00 Acka)
K 2 holds the office of Caped Crusader.
The rule defining The office of Caped Crusader has been repealed. Game custom holds that entities continue to exist after the rule defining em is repealed, thus the office (having been defined as an entity) continues to exist. Furthermore K 2 was not explicitly removed from office. If the entity continues to exist, should not K 2's relationship to it continue as well?
Offices are Entities. Entities may only be manipulated as specified by the rules. Changing the holder of an Office is one way to manipulate the Office. No rule specified that K 2's holding of the Office of Caped Crusader was revoked when the rule defining the Office of Caped Crusader was repealed.
Therefore K 2 still holds the Office of Caped Crusader.
Call for Judgement 627 - July 5, 1998
Initiator: Alfvaen (Sent 5 Jul 1998, 22:46 Acka)
Judge: else...if (Selected 6 Jul 1998, 17:38 Acka)
Upon the correct results for Proposal 3215 having been posted, Whamiols were not triggered(i.e. did not award points to their owners).
Rule 254, "Player States", says that:
"A Pending player becomes Active when it becomes publically knowable that he has voted on a proposal."
Horny Protoceratops was Pending when e went on Vacation on June 19. E had voted on Proposal 3215, but this did not become publicly knowable until July 5, at which time e was on Vacation, not Pending.
I believe that upon eir return from Vacation, e will be returned to "the player state beside Vacation he most recently had", Pending, at which point Rule 254's clause will trigger, e will become Active, and the Whamiols will be set off.
Alvaen is correct. Only a Pending player set off Whamiols upon becoming active, not Vacationing ones.
Call for Judgement 628 - July 7, 1998
Subject: P3290 vs P3296
Initiator: Alfvaen (Sent 7 Jul 1998, 20:39 Acka)
Judge: JT (Selected 7 Jul 1998, 21:10 Acka)
The game effect that would occur if Proposal 3296 was adopted is substantially similar to that of Proposal 3290.
Proposal 3290 states 'Repeal Rule 1308 (Bracket/Smiley Pedantry)'.
Proposal 3296 states 'Repeal Rule Rule 1308, "Bracket/Smiley Pedantry'.
[Hmmm. Don't remember typing "Rule" twice...oops. Obviously I should have called the Proposal something erudite like "Paris In The The Spring"...]
Anyway, either of these Proposals would result in the repeal of Rule 1308 if accepted, so this is really a no-brainer. Free Bronze Torch points!
I see absolutely no difference in the game effects of Proposal 3290 and 3296.
Call for Judgement 629 - July 8, 1998
Initiator: Alfvaen (Sent 8 Jul 1998, 01:10 Acka)
Judge: 867-5309 (Selected 8 Jul 1998, 01:52 Acka)
Whamiols were triggered when Proposal 3216 passed.
JT pointed this out to me, but being the cautious sort I am I'd like to be sure.
Before Proposal 3216 passed, Zaknafein Dourden was Pending. After, e was Voting, which was one of two player states defined as Active under the amended Ruleset.
I believe that this satisfies the conditions of Rule 594.3, but I'm not sure.
I don't see why not. Pretty cute, Alfie.
Call for Judgement 630 - July 13, 1998
Subject: Palindrome Win
Initiator: /dev/joe (Sent 13 Jul 1998 12:46 Acka)
Judge: Alfvaen (Selected 13 Jul 1998 12:52 Acka)
Appealed: /dev/joe (Appealed 14 Jul 1998, 16:29 Acka)
Cortex: The Entity Formerly Known as the Supreme Court (ThinMan and breadbox)
Verdict: TRUE (overturn)
/dev/joe has achieved a Winning Condition during the current cycle.
Just after proposal 3241, named 'X', was accepted, Rule 605 gave /dev/joe a winning condition. The conditions for this are as follows (paraphrased; see rule 605 for the full text):
1) The rule created by that proposal has a game effect in addition to its own addition to the rule set and any effect of rule 605.
It does so, it gives lager the 'regal' property, a synonym for 'royal'.
2) Each word in the rule exists in the rule set previously, or in the official dictionary.
The words 'lager', 'sir', 'is', and 'regal' exist in the official dictionary.
3) The text of the rule is palindromic.
'lagersirisregal' reads the same forwards and backwards.
Thus, immediately after the score changes for P3241 were applied, I achieved a winning condition and the title "Sage o' Doe Gas".
Let us first dispense with the easy ones. A quick check of the Official Dictionary confirms 2), and 3) is patently obvious.
The only troublematic one, IMHO, is 1). Is "regal" the same as "royal" for the purposes of Rule 1390.2? That rule states:
Any player who successfully frinks 5 Frinks which are defined as Royal shall be awarded a random Boon of the Ancients. Right Handed Grapefruit juice is a Royal Frink.
Now, does "Lager, sir, is regal" define Lager as a Royal Frink? Now, since game custom seems to dictate that anything which, in our normal world, can be drunk, can be frunk in Ackanomic, I have no trouble with Lager being a Frink by default. However, is calling a frink "regal" the same as "defining it as Royal"?
Let me consult the nearest dictionary to hand, in this case the 1976 World Book Dictionary, which is probably as good as any:
regal, adj.: 1. belonging to a king; royal. 2. fit for a king; kinglike; stately; splendid; magnificent. royal, adj.: 1a. of kings and queens. 1b. belonging to the family of a king or queen. 2. belonging to a king or queen. 3a. serving a king or queen. 3b. founded by, or under the patronage of, a king or queen. 4. from or by a king or queen. 5. of a kingdom. 6. appropriate for a king or queen; splendid. 7. like a king; noble; majestic. 8. fine, excellent. 9. rich and bright. 10. chemically inert; noble.
Also, appended under Synonyms, there are usage notes for royal vs. regal (and kingly, but I'll omit that):
Royal is the most general in application, describing people or things associated with or belonging to a king. Regal emphasizes the majesty, pomp, and magnificence of the office, and is now used chiefly of people or things showing these qualities.
The Random House Dictionary(Second Addition, Unabridged)has further such notes under kingly:
Regal is esp. applied to the office of kingship or the outward manifestations of grandeur and majesty. Royal is applied esp. to what pertains to or is associated with the person of a monarch.
Another question is: what definition of "Royal" is being used for "Royal Frinks"? I'd say that, since Ackanomic has never had a king or queen, definitions 6("appropriate for a king or queen; splendid") or 8("fine, excellent")are the most appropriate, and the former is very close to definition 2 of regal("fit for a king; kinglike; stately; splendid; magnificent").
But let's face it, if there were a Rule which stated "Mountain Dew is stately, splendid, magnificent, and fit for a king!", one would be hard-pressed to argue that it was therefore a Royal Frink. So let me now betake myself to see if there are any other questions of synonymy in the CFJ archive for me take precedent from.
The Judge's comments for CFJ 308 are telling:
Some rules assign artificial meanings to certain words, meanings that only apply (or, indeed, make sense) within the scope of the game. Examples of such words in Ackanomic include "tradeable", "judgement", and "newspaper". However, in my best judgement, a word in the Ackanomic language is only separated from its English meaning to the extent that the Rules (or some other source of legal authority) provide a clear definition for the word in its new context.
I think that Rule 1390.2, by saying "defined as Royal", is giving its own meaning to the word "Royal" in the context of Frinks in the game. It is the ruling of this Judge, then, that defining a Frink as "regal" is _not_ the same as defining it as "Royal", for the purposes of that Rule.
The word "regal" appears(or did, before the passage of Proposal 3241) only in the Champion's Cloak Rule as a harmless adjective. So I must conclude that the game effect of the Rule that P3241 creates is not sufficient to allow /dev/joe a Palindrome Win. Pity.
The judge's reasoning is based the following: > The Judge's comments for CFJ 308 are telling: > > Some rules assign artificial meanings to certain words, meanings that > only apply (or, indeed, make sense) within the scope of the game. > Examples of such words in Ackanomic include "tradeable", "judgement", > and "newspaper". > > However, in my best judgement, a word in the Ackanomic language is > only separated from its English meaning to the extent that the Rules > (or some other source of legal authority) provide a clear definition > for the word in its new context. > > I think that Rule 1390.2, by saying "defined as Royal", is giving its > own meaning to the word "Royal" in the context of Frinks in the game. > It is the ruling of this Judge, then, that defining a Frink as "regal" > is _not_ the same as defining it as "Royal", for the purposes of that > Rule.
However, this is faulty, in that a synonym for *one of the examples given in CFJ 308's reasoning* is widely used in the rules, without being defined as equivalent anywhere within the rules, and that is "verdict", which is used interchangeably with "judgement" throughout rules 213-217. Certainly no judge would deny that those words mean the same thing in these rules. We also once had this sort of problem with "accepted", "approved", and "passed" proposals, and "YES" vs "for" vs "in favor" votes; some of this may still be hanging around as well.
> But let's face it, if there were a Rule which stated "Mountain Dew is > stately, splendid, magnificent, and fit for a king!", one would be > hard-pressed to argue that it was therefore a Royal Frink.
This argument is a stretch from the actual situation, since it involves trying to substitute another definition of *regal* in place of royal, a definition which *royal* does not have. You might as well try to contrive "feathers" to mean "sad". [Word un-association strikes the supreme court!] In the case at hand, the word substituted is one so close in meaning to the other as to require a usage note in the dictionary to point out the fine distinctions between them.
Supreme Cortex's Reasoning:
The Court agrees with the original judge only insofar as Proposal 3241 did not define Lager as a Royal Frink. The appealer's analogy with the synonyms of "judgement" and "verdict" is faulty. Judgements and verdicts, as used in the rules, are clearly understood to refer to concepts well within their normal English meanings. "Royal", however, is a property with attributes defined entirely within the rules, and its normal English meaning has no bearing on its concept (outside of the assocations it inspires). As such it is clearly understood to function more as a name or a label than as a simple noun. The use of a synonym to refer to that property thus becomes highly suspect, particularly when the word is synonymous only with the common English definition that is all but ignored within the rules. The fact that the synonym is an imperfect one only underscores the rationale for barring such usage.
However, the Court maintains that the rule created by Proposal 3241 did in fact have a game effect: namely, to define lager as regal. That this effect has no secondary effects on the game may seem counter to the spirit of Rule 605 as it has been observed in the past. Regardless, it fulfills the requirements of Rule 609 as written. The fact that this effect is real can be seen by considering a hypothetical CFJ with a statement "Lager is regal". Such a CFJ should be judged as either False or Invalid without the adoption of Proposal 3241; with it, it must certainly be judged True.
The text of Proposal 3241 is distinguished from many other possible palindromic texts by constituting a declarative statement. A palindromic question would not satisfy Rule 605, for example; nor, would a palindromic string of words lacking overall sentence structure. In fact, even a declarative statement would not satisfy the criterion if it were in conflict with a rule of greater precedence.
The Cort therefore overturns the original verdict to True. The original judge is penalized one point.
Call for Judgement 631 - July 13, 1998
Subject: CEIS win
Initiator: K 2 (Sent 13 Jul 1998, 22:06 Acka)
Judge: JT (Selected 14 Jul 1998, 02:47 Acka)
K 2 has achieved a Winning Condition during the current cycle.
On 06 Jul 1998 09:50:47 the cubical earth implementation society had the required hardware, both K 2 and Vynd had donated 5 pieces each.
At 06 Jul 1998 21:51:39 the speaker (Alfvaen) determined K 2 would ride the rocket.
According to Rule 1319.12 after one week in space the selected player would achieve a winning condition.
K 2 did in fact meet all the criteria and was selected to ride the rocket as stated above.
He was in fact selected by the Alfvaen through use of the dice server at the time quoted.
At the time of this CFJ, K 2 had in fact been in the space ship for a week and thus had returned and thus achieves a Winning Condition.
Thus this CFJ is true.
Call for Judgement 632 - July 13, 1998
Subject: Museam Win
Initiator: else...if (Sent 13 Jul 1998, 22:18 Acka)
Judge: Vynd (Selected 14 Jul 1998, 02:52 Acka)
else...if has achieved a Winning Condition during the current cycle.
else...if has a benefactor value exceeding A$5000 following his donation of the Life Size Model of the Ackan Reserve. Since he has never before had a benefactor value exceeding A$5000 he receives a winning condition as per rule 850.
I judge this CFJ to be TRUE. Everything appears to be as the reasoning claims. I admit that I haven't gone so far as to check right down to the very last detail that the stock prices are correct, but so far as I have examined the records and recent events, I've found no reason to doubt the published reports.
Call for Judgement 633 - July 20, 1998
Initiator: Mr. Tambourine Man (Sent 20 Jul 1998, 08:19 Acka time)
Judge: K 2 (Selected 20 Jul 1998, 08:21 Acka time)
JT has chosen which animal he wishes to be lycanthropic in.
Rule 950.3 states:
"The Werewolf of London is a unique, unownable entity. If the Werewolf should bite a player, that player becomes Lycanthropic in the animal of eir choice if e is not Lycanthropic already. If e has not chosen an animal within three days, an animal shall be assigned to em by the Mad Scientist."
JT selected the "animal" he wished to be lycanthropic in as a dragon. I'm not sure however that a dragon counts as an animal or not though and would like to be certain.
> Statement: > JT has chosen which animal he wishes to be lycanthropic in.
At the time this CFJ had been distributed JT had made the following announcements regarding eir chosen lycanthropic form:
> I claim that my Were-form is a were-dragon.
Since "were-forms" are not defined in the rules, recourse to The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993) is necessary. The following definition is listed under the suffix "were-": Used. w. names of animals to denote a human being imagined to be able to change at times into a specified animal, as were-bear, were-leopard, etc.
It would therefore appear that JT has chosen, as eir Lycanthropic form, a human able to change into a dragon.
Was this a valid choice? The only place in which the rules use the term "animal" is in rule 950.3 itself thus, as is customarily the case, standard English meaning is applied. Under animal the following definition is listed:
A living organism having sensation and voluntary motion, without rigid cell walls, and dependent on organic substances for food.
It would appear then, that a were-dragon, being defined as a human, is an animal and a valid choice wrt rule 950.3 .
As an aside a dragon would also meet the animal criteria, both as "a mythical monster like a ..." and as the diminutive of "_Dracunculus vulgaris_".
Call for Judgement 634 - July 20, 1998
Subject: Player Names
Initiator: JT (Sent 26 Jul 1998, 20:15 Acka time)
Judge: 867-5309 (Selected 27 Jul 1998, 19:04 Acka time)
Eric Plumb is a former name of the player currently known as 867-5309.
It has been game custom (see CFJ 584) that a players RL name may be used to refer to them. The question then becomes one of whether a RL name is a former name of the player. I would say that when a player first joins Ackanomic they have two names, one, their RL name is 'former' in that it is the name used to reference them before they joined Ackanomic. Since we allow it as an unambiguous reference to a player, and since it doesn't break anything to treat it this way, and in fact make a whole lot of sense, I ask that this be judged true so that it becomes a formal part of game custom.
If this is judged true, then the currently attempted name changes of 867-5309 to Tom Walmsley and Mr. Tambourine Man to Eric Plumb would fail as they are at that point attempting an illegal name change according to the following part of 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 have a name e previously held.
/dev/joe's Bronze Torch Reasoning:
The issue at hand can be summarized as "does 'a former name' (as used in R348) refer only to a former Ackanomic name, or any name the player has had? Normally, in most of the rules, "name" is construed as "Ackanomic name" when not otherwise specified. However, in this case, it makes more sense to interpret it as "any name the player has been known by with regards to his participation in Ackanomic", since the whole purpose of that rule is to restrict name changes to avoid the possibility of any two Acka things being able to be confused because they have the same name, and real life names are recognized by the rules, so the broadest sense of "a name" includes them.
I appreciate the efforts to rewrite the rules to prevent such occurrences, but I would suggest that the rules should prohibit any naming or renaming of anything to "the current or former Ackanomic name of any current or former player, or the real life name of any current or former player as reported to the registrar" so that the rules don't imply that the registrar is supposed to track the current real life names of former players, which do occasionally change.
This CFJ is trivially TRUE. My name is Eric Plumb; 'former' means 'existing in a prior time,' and not necessarily 'no longer existing' (I actually, in the grand Ackan tradition of blame reallocation, checked the Definition Lookup Dictionaries on this one), and hence Eric Plumb is a former name of mine as well as a current one.
Unfortunately, this judgement has no bearing on the case at hand. /dev/joe summed up the issue rather nicely in eir Bronze Torch reasoning, and I might tend to agree with em, but the author's phrasing of the statement leaves me no option but triviality.
Not that I usually exercise any other options anyway.
Call for Judgement 635 - July 30, 1998
Subject: Modest proposals
Initiator: breadbox (Sent 30 Jul 1998, 12:17 Acka time)
Judge: Small Mew Toy (Selected 30 Jul 1998, 12:17 Acka time)
Proposal 3321 is modest.
Once again, we are forced to ask ourselves what constitutes a preface. CFJ 414 determined that punctuation before proposal "furniture" was permitted. CFJ 560 ruled that notes [bracketed text] also could precede "furniture". So how about sentence fragments?
The obvious argument for a judgement of True would be that a sentence fragment, while not completely devoid of meaning, is still pretty empty in the semantic department, and thus analagous to the case of CFJ 560. But I'm wondering, then, how far this can go. How much digging through a proposal's text could be required of the Scorekeeper (or anyone else) in order to determine its point values? When does a bunch of text stop being preferatory?
If memory serves, game custom would argue for a False verdict - except that this custom was established under slightly different wording of the rules, so I believe there is no real applicable game custom. So, I offer the previous paragraph as a spirit-of-the-game argument for a False verdict.
I agree with the submitter's reasoning.
Call for Judgement 636 - July 31, 1998
Initiator: Publius (Sent 31 July 1998, 00:41 Acka time)
Judge: Slakko (Selected 02 Aug 1998, 10:48 Acka time)
In Rule 309, the phrase "substantially similar" constitutes weasel words, as specified in the rules.
"Substantially similar" is a subjective standard. In the context of Rule 309, it is used to allow a judge to invalidate a proposal, on the grounds that the game effect of a proposal would be "substantially similar" to another proposal already in the queue. However, Rule 309 gives no guidance on how to interpret the phrase "substantially similar", leaving the judge free to make an ad hoc decision, possibly guided only by is own self-interest (for example, by preventing a superior proposal from being accepted by the players rather than one of is own authorship).
The standard "substantially similar" in this context also ignores the possibility that apparently minor differences in game effect may still be quite important to the outcome, and may have been very deliberately introduced by the author of the proposal being judged.
I have submitted a proposal to delete the phrase "substantially similar" wherever it appears in Rule 309, and replace it with the word "identical". I feel that this will recognize the true interest of the players in preventing duplicate proposals from cluttering the queue, while allowing alternative proposals with fine differences in nuance to be considered. I ask that that this valiant act of weasel slaying be recognized.
>From Rule 344, "Weasel Words", we have the following: There exist certain words whose meaning is indeterminate in some contexts. Such words are known as "weasel words". Any words which are vague, overly broad or obfuscate the intended meaning of a rule qualify as weasel words.
The context in which Rule 309 contains the alleged Weasel Words is as follows:
If two Proposals, A and B, have identical text, or if (in the judgement of a judge) the game effect that would occur if Proposal A was adopted is substantially similar to that of Proposal B.
Now regardless of the other definitions, relying on the judgement of a judge to interpret what is "substantially similar" indicates that the phrase "substantially similar" is vague. Hence the phrase is an instance of "weasel words". I therefore judge TRUE.
Call for Judgement 637 - August 1, 1998
Initiator: Slakko (Sent 1 Aug 1998, 09:39 Acka time)
Judge: K 2 (Selected 02 Aug 1998, 10:43 Acka time)
Vynd is the Archaeologist.
2 is prime. Therefore -2 is prime. 0 is not prime. Therefore at the end of Cycle 22 The Wages of Sin (who is now Vynd) was the only player with a prime score. E had not won the cycle, therefore e became Archaeologist. E has not since resigned from or been impeached from this office, and hence e remains Archaeologist.
Rule 593 places ..."the single voting player who had the highest score when the cycle ended, which was both a prime number and not greater than or equal to the Magic Number at that time, and who is not already a Scientist other than the Archaeologist." in the office of Archaeologist at the end of a cycle. Since prime numbers aren't mathematically defined in the rules, game custom holds that a common english definition be found to define them. According to the prime research page maintained at The University of Tennessee (http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/glossary/Prime.html) a prime number is defined in the following manner:
"An integer greater than one is called a prime number if its only positive divisors (factors) are one and itself."
Greater than one clearly excludes negative numbers. Game custom supports this definition since the sentence fragment (in Rule 252) ..."and x is the smallest prime number"... has always been interpreted as a finite positive integral number - not an infinitely negative one. Similarly the sentence fragment ..."the least prime number that would result in a unique name"... (from rule Rule 594.5) has also been interpreted in the past as including only positive numbers.
As a result -2, being negative, is not prime, thus Rule 593's "highest prime" requirement was not met by any player at the end of cycle 22.
This CFJ is ruled FALSE.
Call for Judgement 638 - August 2, 1998
Initiator: Alfvaen (Sent 2 Aug 1998, 21:54 Acka time)
1st Judge: rufus (Selected 06 Aug 1998, 17:21 Acka time) (deadbeat)
2nd Judge: Piz (selected 15 Aug 1998, 03:51 Acka)
There is no game of Eleusis with /dev/joe as a player.
I was just looking over the Eleusis rule, and noticed that it said "The game is played with 5-8 players and one optional Referee."
Now, the game commonly referred to "Eleusis Game 1" has JT as a referee, and four players--/dev/joe, else...if, and two others(who have, at some time, been known as The Gingham Wearer and Slagothor respectively). This is obviously not a real game of Eleusis. "Eleusis Game 2", in which I am currently Deus, does not contain /dev/joe as a player.
I'm not sure how this happened--was the lower limit overlooked, or changed at some point?--but Rules is Rules.
This judgement is based on the following text from Rule 701 (thanks to JT for pointing it out to this newbie):
"If, however, the illegality or impossibility of a publically knowable change to the game state goes unreported for at least 14 days, the action or inaction which caused that change is considered legal, but it is still a Crime. The change is deemed to have occurred retroactively to the time of the attempt. The preceding does not apply to the case of events which occur automatically, but whose occurrence is not (or erroneously) reported [e.g., loss of the Great Trombone]. This paragraph has precedence over rule 103."
More than 14 days have passed since "Eleusis Game 1" began with four players. Beginning a subgame must be considered a "change to the [Ackanomic] game state." The change was publicly knowable, as the start of the game was announced in a public message. Therefore "Eleusis Game 1" does in fact exist and is legal. The action of beginning "Eleusis Game 1" may have been (also by Rule 701) a Crime, but that determination is beyond the scope of this judgement.
Call for Judgement 639 - August 3, 1998
Subject: More Eleusis
Initiator: Alfvaen (Sent 3 Aug 1998, 18:14 Acka time)
Judge: K 2 (Selected 06 Aug 1998, 17:23 Acka time)
The current game of Eleusis in which Alfvaen is Deus will enter 'sudden death' after the next card played.
This rests on the interpretations of two sections in the Eleusis rule:
k) If there is no prophet, mark every 10th card played with a '*'. After forty cards, the round enters 'sudden death'.
l) If there is a prophet, mark every 10th card since they became the prophet with a '!'. After 30 cards (3 '!') the round enters sudden death.
I believe that a reasonable interpretation of these would not make them mutually exclusive.
In the game mentioned above, Ayla became Prophet with the 23rd card played, and remained so until the 36th card was played. So there was a "!" on the 23rd card, and one on the 33rd. Perhaps the 30th card should not have been marked with a "*", since there was a Prophet at that time, but it still seems reasonable to me that _after_ Ayla lost eir status as Prophet the first count(toward forty)would still include the 13(14?)cards that were played while there was a prophet. The "forty cards" in that clause is ambiguous, and nowhere does "cards played" mean "cards played when there is no prophet".
I should also note that 39 cards total have been played so far in the game, with or without a Prophet. So if those under the Prophet count towards the forty, then the next will be the fortieth.
K 2's Reasoning:
I am in agreement with the initiator. The phrase "forty cards" in section k is not restricted to only those for which eir was no prophet thus on the fortieth card of the game in question, it will enter "sudden death".
Call for Judgement 640 - August 5, 1998
Initiator: Alfvaen (Sent 5 Aug 1998, 06:46 Acka time)
Judge: Vynd (Selected 06 Aug 1998, 17:25 Acka time)
K 2 has the Magic Potato.
Although according to the Rules the Magic Potato is given out every Monday, at noon, it is also the result of a random determination the posting of whose results should be the time at which it occurs. Due to the Speaker interregnum it still hasn't been posted yet, and I've been wondering about this one for a while. And, frankly, it will affect scoring quite a bit since K 2 has a lot of Proposals in the last batch.
I don't know if I'm mising something, but I can't find anything in the rules that says the Potato is handed out at noon on Mondays. So far as I can see in the Potato rule, its just handed out once a week. Even if there is something in the rules that would call for it to be distributed at noon, I think Rule 230 has precedence, and it will be distributed once the random determination is made and not before. So I judge this TRUE.
Previous (611-625) - CFJ Index - Next (641-655)