Previous (671-685) - CFJ Index - Next (701-715)
Call for Judgement 686 - November 5, 1998
Subject: JT's Winning Condition (3rd time lucky)
Initiator: JT (sent 05 Nov 1998, 15:09 Acka)
1st Judge: The Green Ripper (chosen 7 Nov 1998, 15:25 Acka) (deadbeat)
2nd Judge: Wild Card (chosen 17 Nov 1998, 04:43 Acka)
JT has achieved a winning condition during the current cycle.
On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 01:53:15 -0500 (EST) JT donated A$2705 to the museum in the form of 2 of Malenkai's Gold Coins (#27 and #28) and the trinket 'JT cleaned out his closet and found all of this junk' (value of A$2703). Since his Benefactor Value at the time of donation was A$2296, this brought his total Benefactor Value to over A$5001. Since this was the first time that JT had a Benefactor Value greater than A$5000, e achieved a Winning Condition.
Call for Judgement 687 - November 5, 1998
Subject: Slakko Cycle Win By Points CFJ
Initiator: Slakko (sent 5 Nov 1998, 19:06 Acka)
Judge: K 2 (chosen 7 Nov 1998, 05:49 Acka)
Slakko has achieved a Winning Condition during the current cycle.
Eir score was the first to reach or exceed the Magic Number during the current cycle. The current scorekeeper's log documents this adequately.
I rule this CFJ TRUE, cause the Scorekeeper told me so.
Call for Judgement 688 - November 6, 1998
Subject: Go Fish Precedence
Initiator: JT (sent 06 Nov 1998, 04:19 Acka)
Judge: Studge (chosen 07 Nov 1998, 05:49 Acka)
Retracted by JT at Sat, 07 Nov 1998 12:23:08 -0500.
The play of a Go Fish Otzma Card on Proposal 3720 did not cause the proposal's voting period to end.
Rule 1240.2 does not have precedence over either rule 106 or rule 320.5.
While I realize this is probably a trivial CFJ, I want it entered into explicit game custom.
Rule 106 says:
>Players eligible to vote on proposals may change their vote up until the
>end of the prescribed voting period, but in any case are limited to one
>vote per proposal.
>The prescribed voting period on a proposal is seven days, starting from
>the moment that the proposal is publicly distributed as specified by the
Rule 320.5 says:
>When The Current Government of Ackanomia is Elected Assembly only the
>Senators, Speaker and President are eligible to vote on proposals. In
>addition a proposal will passif it meets quorum and receives a simple
>majority of votes.
Rule 1240.2 says:
>When a Go Fish Card has been used on a proposal, the date of the end of
>the Voting on that Proposal is considered to the date it has been used.
Since rule 1240.2 does not claim precedence over rule 106, then it cannot be modifying the prescribed voting period of the proposal, therefore the only interpretation of rule 1240.2 is that it makes entities ineligble to vote on the proposal after the card has been played and before the end of voting period.
Even if this was the intent (not a particularly useful concept in Ackanomic), it still fails, since rule 106 explicitly grants eligible players the ability to change their votes until the end of the prescribed voting period of 7 days and rule 320.5 grants the status of eligible players to a specific group.
Without taking precedence over either of those rules, the OC Go Fish cannot have the effect described in it's rule text, therefore this CFJ should be judged TRUE.
Call for Judgement 689 - November 7, 1998
Subject: JT Hat Win
Initiator: JT (sent 07 Nov 1998, 13:01 Acka)
Judge: r-attila the farce (chosen 10 Nov 1998, 05:15 Acka)
JT achieved a winning condition on 27 Oct 1998 04:06:42 (which is during the current cycle) through the action of rule 607.
When Slakko judged UNDECIDED on CFJ 376, I realized that I'd misread the rule 607. I then sold two hats (numbered 1 and 12) to the Mad Hatters. At this point I recieved the title Agent of KAOS, since I had hats C7, 3, and 8, all of which were TRUE and my score was greater than or equal to the sum of those three hats.
At this point a few things happened simultaneously and an infinitesimal amount of time after I recieved the title.
a) I was payed A$40 from the owners of the Eggplants corresponding to hats C7, 3, and 8 (Studge, K2 and Gromit)
b) The goose went somewhere else according to rule 620.
An infinitesimal time after a) above, the following events occured in order, and an infinitesimal amount of time apart.
c) the agenda hats (C7, 3, and 8) were destroyed.
d) I (as the Agent of KAOS) achieved a Winning Condition.
The only issue here is whether or not step b) occured where I have it above (or at some other point before step d) or if it occured after d).
I contend that the 'event' being referred to in rule 620 is the donation of the hats to the Mad Hatters. This triggered the first part of rule 607
and gave me the title. This event did not give me a winning condition as well, as that happens due to a further sequence of events, all of which occur some infinitesmal amount of time after I recieve the title. Therefore the firing of rule 620 happened immediately upon my recieving the title and did not wait until after I had achieved the Winning Condition later in the rule.
The reasoning presented by the intiator seems flawless, and my research into the relevant rules also indicates this.
Call for Judgement 690 - November 7, 1998
Subject: Mungibility of Nontradeability
Initiator: JT (sent 7 Nov 1998, 14:18 Acka)
1st Judge: K 2 (chosen 10 Nov 1998, 05:17 Acka) (deadbeat)
2nd Judge: IdiotBoy (chosen 19 Nov 1998, 05:22 Acka)
JT has three whamiols.
If the original determination for JT's play of the Arctic Explorer card was valid, then this CFJ is TRUE.
If the original determination was false, then JT has a Magic Radish that he did not previously have.
I believe that the first determination was accurate because when the entities Magic Radish and Rock to Wind a String around, were repealed they ceased to be tradeable. I believe they are still entities however.
Rule 500 states that
>Something is an entity if and only if the rules specify that it is, or
>it is defined by the Rules and Ackanomic tradition indicates that it is
They are still entities, because Ackanomic tradition has them as entities.
Rule 500 further states
>An entity may not be created, destroyed, or manipulated except as
>specified by the Rules.
Rule 502 states
>Each entity is either unownable, nontradeable, or tradeable. Tradeable
>entities are either giftable or ackable, and are either protected or
>exportable. Tradeable entities are ackable and protected unless the
>Rules specify otherwise. An entity is nontradeable unless the Rules
>specify otherwise. If an entity is nontradeable or tradeable then it
I would argue that the entities became non-tradeable by rule 502 when they ceased to be defined by the rules. Since this is rule 502 applying the change of state from tradeability to non-tradeability, I would argue that rule 500 does not take precedence and block this manipulation of tradeability since it is happening as defined in the rules.
If this argument is accurate, then the first determination was valid, and the statement is TRUE. Otherwise the statement is FALSE.
I can find no fault with the reasoning of JT in this matter. It is this Court's considered opinion that the Magic Radish and Rock to Wind a String around are legally "nontradeable Entities."
Call for Judgement 691 - November 9, 1998
Subject: Ordering of End of Cycle Effects
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent 9 Nov 1998, 22:30 Acka)
Judge: r-attila the farce (chosen 12 Nov 1998, 05:39 Acka)
Studge's score is zero.
This is assuming that eir score was not set to -40 by Rule 607. I'm still not convinced.
I think the rules clearly state that this cfj is wrong.
Call for Judgement 692 - November 9, 1998
Subject: Happy Number Determination
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent 9 Nov 1998, 22:31 Acka)
Judge: Wild Card (chosen 12 Nov 1998, 05:40 Acka)
Judgement: TRUE (promulgated 15 Nov 1998, 11:56 Acka)
Appellant: Pol Pot
Cortex: /dev/cortex (/dev/joe and Gromit)
The Happy Number is 105.
I agree with the initiator's reasoning.
rule 205 says: "Retroactive score changes are not permitted, but corrections to the scores are allowed when an error is discovered. This section (6) has precedence over sections 1 thru 5, where there is a conflict."
So all of our attempts on the happy number succeeded, even though the scores were wrong.
The rule snippet posted by Pol Pot here is troublesome, in that it seems to be written for a Pragmatic system, where things happen when the officers in charge of tracking them say they happen or have logged that they happen, rather than the Platonic system we have developed with a Pragmatic exception for things that have been tracked incorrectly too long.
In a Platonic system, the "Retroactive score changes" bit above doesn't apply here at all, because the scorekeeper's reports only represent an attempt to track the actual scores, and various corrections were noted to the scores which have determined that nobody had a score of 105 when claiming they had a score of the Happy Number. In fact, the one case where it comes closest to mattering goes against what Pol Pot was trying to accomplish here, as it would seem to say that the Pragmatism clause can't kick in to retroactively make incorrectly harfed scores valid, but the Pragmatism clause in R101 has precedence.
In a Pragmatic system, the scorekeeper had not yet harfed a score of 105 when it was claimed, so still, nobody had a score of 105 when they claimed the Happy Number.
Thus, we rule TRUE, and penalize the appealer 2 points; the small penalty in this case is due to there being no real reasoning on this CFJ until the appealer submitted some; he appears to have been the first person to take a proper look at it.
Call for Judgement 693 - November 10, 1998
Subject: On-Ice GAL Members
Initiator: Fortunato (sent 10 Nov 1998, 13:52 Acka)
Judge: Blarney (chosen 12 Nov 1998, 05:40 Acka)
Wayne is not a member of the Grab-A-Donkey Active List.
I was sure about this until Alfvaen pointed out some bad wording in the Rule. From Rule 1217 (Grab-A-Donkey):
"The game consists... and players, who initially comprise all current active Players of Ackanomic..."
This would mean (since Active is defined, and On-Ice is not a part of it), that On-Ice players would not be on the GAL. However, right below this it says,
"A. When... , all Players of Ackanomic, excluding the Wrangler, those exempted as noted above..."
Are "those exempted as noted above" On-Ice players? If so, this should be ruled TRUE.
Having looked at rule 1217, I cannot see why this statement would not be true.
Call for Judgement 694 - November 15, 1998
Subject: Messages on acka-research
Initiator: JT (sent Nov 15 1998, 00:31 Acka)
Judge: Pol Pot (chosen Nov 16 1998, 04:54 Acka)
JT's messages to the acka-research list while he was Postal did not result in him paying A$79 to the treasury for each message.
Rule 709 is the only definition of game action. It says If a player is in the Gaol, they may perform no game actions except those on the following numbered list and those allowed by Rule 101. If a particular action on this list is not defined elsewhere the rules, however, it is considered to be "prohibited". This clause defers to any other rule which regulates any action on the following list: and then later says 7) A player in the Gaol may post up to 3 public messages a day.
This implies that posting a public message is a game action. That statement has also been found to be true in previous CFJs (notably CFJ 336, and further confirmed in CFJ 526, the second of which came after the statement about public messages were added to the list of Gaol allowed actions)
Further, rule 370 says If a message is sent to a mailing list named in the Postal Code, then it is a public message if and only if the Postal Code indicates that mailing list is a public forum, and any actions attempted in the message obey the restrictions outlined in the Postal Code for that list.
The Postal Code says acka-research@ is a public forum meant for discussion only. It cannot be used for public actions or any other game actions. [In short, no one *needs* to be subscribed to this list.]
Therefore, even though the Postal Code calls acka-research a public forum, it cannot be used for any game action, and thus anything sent to it cannot be a public message since by prior game custom, a public message is a game action.
This strongly indicates that the current postal code formulation is flawed, but that can wait for correction until another day. In the meantime, nothing posted to the research list can have a game effect, and that includes implicitly affecting the game state I believe.
JT's postings to acka-research did not contain attempted game actions, so were public messages. The important distinction is between a message which attempts a game action and a message which has a game effect.
Call for Judgement 695 - November 15, 1998
Subject: Research Public Message PWCFJ
Initiator: K 2 (sent Nov 15 1998, 01:55 Acka)
Judge: else...if (chosen Nov 16 1998, 05:04 Acka)
The legality of a goaled player sending four messages to acka-research cannot be determined with finality.
This is a Paradox Win CFJ. [Like we *need* another scam this month :)]
The Postal Code: acka-research@ is a public forum meant for discussion only. It cannot be used for public actions or any other game actions. [In short, no one *needs* to be subscribed to this list.]
Rule 370: If a message is sent to a mailing list named in the Postal Code, then it is a public message if and only if the Postal Code indicates that mailing list is a public forum, and any actions attempted in the message obey the restrictions outlined in the Postal Code for that list.
CFJ 336 established that a "public message" is a "game action".
A message sent to research can not be a public message since if it were it would also be a game action and would thus violate the restriction placed on the list by the postal code. Since it is not a public message it is not a game action and thus conforms with the list requirements and thus is a public message, but since it is a public message it doesn't.....
an infinite loop....
Since it cannot be determined with finality if player's message to research is a public message or not, it can not be determined how many public messages they have sent. Rule 709 permits a goaled player to send three public messages but it is impossible to determine if they have sent a legal number (less than four) or an illegal number (four or more).
[While I'm here I just like to let the goose know that when e comes over to my house *I* will take to to the movies and stuff.... not like other players]
Since CFJ 336, laws have changed in a way that leaves no question that public messages are game actions. (I note rules 709 and 250.) This leaves the question of the iff statement in rule 370, which, restated, reads: message is public IFF list is public forum and "any actions attempted **IN** the message obey the restrictions outlined in the Postal Code for that list." (emphasis mine). For K2's argument to work, the act of sending a message must be attempted in the message.
Call for Judgement 696 - November 15, 1998
Subject: Indeterminate Church Policy PWCFJ
Initiator: Pol Pot (sent Nov 15 1998, 23:23 Acka)
Retracted by Pol Pot at Mon, 16 Nov 1998 05:47:45 -0500.
The legality of Pol Pot's donation of Alice in Wonderland to They Might Be About to Win a Cycle cannot be determined with finality. (This is a Paradox Win CFJ)
Rule 1301 says:
c. A Player who disobeys the Church Policy of a Church of which he or she is a member is guilty of Iconoclasm, which is a Crime. It is impermissible for a Player to take a game action which constitutes Iconoclasm if he or she has any legal alternative which would not constitute Iconoclasm. [That is, Iconoclasm normally doesn't happen unless there is no alternative. It is possible for a player to commit Iconoclasm by inaction, though.]
Because the Church Policy is continually flipping back and forth between requiring and not allowing its members to donate such trinkets to the Church, it is impossible to determine with finality which state the game was in when I attempted to donate the trinket.
Call for Judgement 697 - November 17, 1998
Initiator: Pol Pot (sent Nov 17 1998, 02:50 Acka)
1st Judge: Danek
2nd Judge: rufus
3rd Judge: Wild Card
Appealed by: Trent
Cortex: Amicus Draconis
Pol Pot is a butthead
The Judge's reasoning seems to support a TRUE verdict rather than an INVALID. Rule 101 says:
Actions described in the rules may only be performed, and shall only have those effects,as specified by the rules. Whatever is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by the rules, however, is permitted and unregulated.
Being a butthead is NOT regulated. And on 11/16/98, Pol Pot posted the following message to a valid list:
>I declare myself to be a butthead.
>I don't think this is regulated, which would make it permissible
>someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Which would make Pol Pot a butthead
By rule 215, all judgements must be in accord with the rules in effect. Since there is no rule defining who is or is not a butthead, we must rely on the overarching authority of rule 101 which permits any unregulated action. Since being a butthead is unregulated, Trents declaration of himself to be a butthead was certainly legal under rule 101. A good parallel is CFJ 535. That was judged false because there was no evidence that Guy Fawkes had given himself or that someone else had given to Guy Fawkes the status of butthead. In this case, Trent (under his former name) had given this status to himself publically. Since that was done publically, it occured under the auspices of rule 101. Therefore this CFJ should have been judged TRUE. Thus we now overturn the judgement to TRUE and fine the original judge 10 points for not doing his homework.
Call for Judgement 698 - November 18, 1998
Subject: Museum Win The First
Initiator: Thomas Jute (sent Nov 18 1998, 01:35 Acka)
Judge: K 2 (left the game)
2nd Judge: IdiotBoy
Appellant: Pol Pot
Cortex: Amicus Draconis (JT and Vynd)
Penalty to 2nd Judge: 6 points
Thomas Jute has achieved a win condition during the cuurent cycle of Ackanomic.
I donated r-attila the farce is happy to the museum. Therefore
my benefactor value is greater than A$5000 which R850 indicates gives me a
At the time of this judgement, I could not find "r-attila the farce is happy" in the Museum. Rule 850 states:
"Each Museum benefactor has a benefactor value (BV), which is the sum of the value of all objects on display in the North Wing that that benefactor donated (the benefactor of record is considered to be the last player to donate a particular object)."
At the time of this judgement, I can find no items on display in the North Wing which have been donated by Thomas Jute. His BV is, therefore, 0. This conflicts directly with the reasoning for the Winning Condition.
Perhaps, then, Thomas Jute has been scammed out of his Winning Condition by an unsavory art thief. The logs indicate, rather, that Thomas Jute gave this Trinket to the Museum, submitted his CWCFJ, then it was pointed out that the Trinket was a Forgery and thus removed from the Museum.
Unfortunately for Thomas Jute, all of these actions occured in the same message and must be considered to have occured essentially at the same time. I say unfortunately, for that denies Thomas Jute his hard earned win.
Here's what happens, according to R850 (the quotations from the rule will be indented for clarity):
Upon a benefactor's BV exceeding A$5000, if e is a voting player, all objects donated by that benefactor are transferred to the West Wing, and a big ceremony, which is a public gathering, is held.
At the point where ""r-attila the farce is happy" was donated to the Museum, Thomas Jute's BV exceeded A$5000. So the above happened, except:
If this appears to occur simultaneously with a player becoming a Member of the Museum, however, it will occur an infinitesimal time afterwards instead.
So, it didn't happen right away. In between the time that the Trinket was donated and it was declared a forgery, Thomas Jute was made a Member of the Museum (since his BV did not exceed A$1000, previously.) He didn't have all of his objects moved to the West Wing, because that would have occured after the forgery had already been discovered. Additionally:
Then that benefactor becomes a Life Member of the Museum, and his name is added to the end of the list of names on the plaque in front of the West Wing, and the lighted sign in front of the West Wing stops displaying whatever it was displaying and begins displaying that benefactor's name, and the lighted sign in front of the North Wing starts displaying 'North'.
The above didn't happen, occurring even later than the transfer would have occurred. Which means that:
Then, if that is the first time that player has had a benefactor value exceeding A$5000, he achieves a Winning Condition.
This certainly did not occur. As it would have happened FAR outside of the scope of the message in question, much later than the discovery of the forgery.
Additionally, I note that Thomas Jute will now be unable to achieve a so-called "Museum Win", since eir BV has already exceeded A$5000 once.
Since I have the right of this forum to do so, I will note that I find this attempted win to be among the most repulsive in all my time in Ackanomic. Perhaps what bothers me most is the tacit (and even in some cases explicit) collusion of some of Ackanomic's foremost citizens and Officers to, quite frankly, steal cycle wins.
Ackanomic is -not- a formal system. It should not be interpreted as such. It is the considered opinion of this court that continued reliance on the Letter of the Law, to the -exclusion- to the Spirit of the Law, to direct gameplay will lessen the "fun value" for all Players.
JT's Bronze Torch Reasoning:
I'm going to cover two things here.
First, the judge stated that the trinket wasn't in the musuem at the time of judgement. It merely had to be there at the time of CFJ submission, not at time of Judgement for this to be ruled TRUE, and ruling it FALSE based on that would have been an error.
Second the judge tried to make a case, as did /dev/joe that it was possible that the objects weren't in the museum at the time that the CFJ was submitted. That is what I wish to address in this Bronze Torch reasoning.
In the recent CFJ 689 dealing with Hats and the Chartreuse Goose, I argued that when two rules claim to have an effect happen an infinitesimal time after a specific event the rules essentially have to operate in parallel since nothing defines intra-rule timing, and it makes more sense to use a consistant 'length' for the infinitesimal amount of time passing between two discrete events.
This CFJ's reasoning attempts to apply that same reasoning to the case of player actions in the same message (something we allow purely by game custom) versus rule dictated events (the sequence layed out by Rule 850).
My view here would have to be that player actions in a message do in fact occur in order, but not necessarily an infinitesimal amount of time after the previous action in the message, but an infinitesimal amount of time after all rule generated sequences of events from the previous action have ceased. For practical purposes this is the 'same' as an infinitesimal time after the previous action because since it's infinitesimal it's not measurable and the fact that 6 events (a completely arbitrary number) happened after the first action in the message and before the second does not substantially alter the time of the second action in the message.
So in the case under consideration by this CFJ (and which I believe applies to all three current CFJs about similar sequences of events) the following things happened.
Thomas jute created the trinket.
(rule 850 section III, forces a move to the museum before the donation)
Thomas Jute donates that trinket to the museum
(rule 850, Section IV & V, Thomas Jute's Benefactor Value exceeds A$5000)
(rule 850, Section V & VII, Thomas Jute becomes a Member of the Museum)
/ (rule 850, Section V & VII, Thomas Jute added to North Wing plaque)
\ (rule 850, Section VII, All of Thomas Jute's items moved to West Wing)
/ (rule 850, Section V & VII, North Wing sign displays Thomas Jute)
\ (rule 850, Section VII, A big ceremony is held)
(rule 850, Section VII, Thomas Jute becomes a Life Member)
(rule 850, Section VII, Thomas Jute's name added to plaque)
(rule 850, Section VII, West Wing sign begins displaying Thomas Jute)
(rule 850, Section VII, North Wing sign begins displaying North)
(rule 850, Section VII, Thomas Jute gains a Winning Condition)
Thomas Jute submits a CFJ claiming the Winning Condition
Thomas Jute points out that the trinket is a forgery.
(rule 506, trinket is transferred to r-attila the farce)
Operations denoted by () above are rule mandated effects.
Operations denoted by < (well the larger version :)) occur simultaneously due to the 'parallelization' between two simultaneous rule effects.
I believe the above to be sound and consistant with both the rules and current game custom.
The rules are silent on the fact of whether or not actions in the same message occur in order, or if they all happen simultaneously or if they are all begun simultaneously or what, therefore we need to look at game custom.
There seems to be fairly consistant game custom (qv CFJ 448) that actions within a message occur in the order in which they are specified and in fact CFJ 448's reasoning makes a very good case for why this should in fact be the case.
Given that, it remains merely to decide if actions specified by a player and all their attendant rule-required effect complete before the next player specified action occurs.
Once more the rules are silent, and this time, in resorting to existing game custom we find that it is not spelled out anywhere, so we find that we must create or at least explicate such game custom here, and rely on how we actually play.
Consider the following hypothetical situation:
Player A has A$5 and is the sole active member of Org B (Players C and D
are proxied to Org B). Org B owns the requisite number of A$ to
make the actions specified legal. Player A now performs the following
actions in a public message.
Player A suggests and approves that Org B transfer A$100 to them.
Player A creates a trinket named XXX worth A$100 with the description
The way the game is now played is that the org action would be suggested and approved which would cause the transfer to occur to Player A. Player A would then create the trinket as specified.
Given that this is analogous and exemplifies a typical game situation which we encounter, we, the Cortex Amicus Draconis can only find this CFJ to be TRUE and assign a penalty of 6 points to the initial judge.
Call for Judgement 699 - November 18, 1998
Subject: Museum Win The Second CWCFJ
Initiator: r-attila the farce (sent Nov 18 1998, 01:39 Acka)
Cortex: Amicus Draconis (JT and Vynd)
Penalty to Appellant: 6 points.
r-attila the farce has achieved a win condition during the cuurent cycle of Ackanomic.
I donated Thomas Jute is happy to the museum. Therefore my
benefactor value was greater than A$5000 which R850 indicates gives me a
r-attila the farce never had possession of the Trinket "Thomas Jute is happy".
The creation of Thomas Jute is happy was created using A$ the destruction of another Trinket which was still in the Museum, and thus the A$ to create Thoma Jute is happy were not avaiable Since the trinket was never created, it could not have been donated to the Museum. Since it was never donated to the Museum, it could not have changed r-attila the farce's BV. Since r-attila the farce's BV is less than A$5001, e has not achieved a Winning Condition.
The Court will note that rule 850 specifically states that:
"Entities may not be removed or stolen from the Museum except as described by the rules"
Current game custom and rule interpretation leads us to the conclusion that in order for an Entity to be removed from the Museum, the rules must specifically describe the way in which it is to be removed. The "forgery" rule  which was used to remove "Thomas Jute is happy"'s ancestor from the Museum do not provide such specification.
One may contend that our pragmatic view of the rules allows the "forgery" rules to extract Entities from the Museum. This is insupportable. In cases where the rules provide a means for Entities to be manipulated in a specific manner, those rules provide the ONLY means of such manipulation. We have rules which describe the manner in which Entities may be removed from the Museum, rule 506 is not one of them.
Bronze Torch Reasoning (/dev/joe):
IdiotBoy wrote a very nice appeal reasoning for this CFJ, but it is all
based on the clause in Rule 850 which states:
> "Entities may not be removed or stolen from the Museum except as described
> by the rules"
However, Rule 850 has no special precedence (except for the Private Collection Room, which this trinket was not in), so if this clause would prevent the forgery from being transferred to Thomas Jute, it fails to do so because Rule 506 has precedence.
I also note that (to me) it has never been clear whether entities in the Museum are actually owned by the Museum, or simply unowned and on display in the Museum. It is entirely possible that Thomas Jute owned the trinket in question while it was still on display in the Museum. In this case, the subsequent destruction of the trinket by Rule 506 (which only requires ownership, and does not care that the trinket might happen to be on display in the museum at the time) also had precedence over whatever in Rule 850 may have attempted to prevent such destruction.
This situation is analogous to CFJ 698 which we have submitted reasoning for.
Since the actions under consideration in that CFJ occured in order (and even via /dev/joe's BT reasoning) r-attila the farce did possess the trinket necessary to convert into the A$ which created the new trinket.
Given that r-attila the farce had the trinket 'r-attila the farce is happy' at the beginning of his sequence of actions, the actions proceeded in order as reasoned by our judgement on CFJ 698.
Thus, we, the Cortex Amicus Draconis find this CFJ to be TRUE, and impose a penalty to the appealer of 6 points.
Call for Judgement 700 - November 18, 1998
Subject: Museum Win The Third CFJ
Initiator: Pol Pot (sent Nov 18 1998, 01:46 Acka)
Judge: r-attila the farce
Appellant: Wild Card
Cortex: Cortez's Courtly Cortege (Alfvaen and Slakko)
Pol Pot has achieved a win condition during the cuurent cycle of Ackanomic.
I donated Doubting Thomas Jute to the museum. Therefore my
my benefactor value is greater than A$5000 which R850 indicates gives me a
Its a clean cut yes pol pot obviously donated the named trinket as per the current ruleset.
I agree with various of IB's reasonings.
The other two similar CWCFJ's having been ruled TRUE with quite flawless reasoning supplied by Amicus Draconis, it behooves us to concur. The appellant is fined 6 points, just to keep things symmetrical(although it would have been less symmetrical had this CFJ not also been appealed).
Previous (671-685) - CFJ Index - Next (701-715)