exclusions: Joel Uckelman, Jill Wittrock, Jeff Schroeder

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

Former player Rich Peters did not complete a whole turn, as described in rule 202/0, and thus rule 201/0 was violated.

Joel D Uckelman writes:

(1) 1. Ax(Tx -> Px) Assumption
(1) 2. Tr -> Pr 1, A instantiation
(3) 3. ~Pr Assumption
(1,3) 4. ~Tr 2,3 modus tolens

(note: the A's are supposed to be inverted as universal quantifiers, but I can't do that by e-mail).

For those not versed in predicate logic, the above argument runs thusly: I didn't send this to anyone but you, so unless you copied it (which I don't think you did) I'm the only one to see your reply. However, I'm sending this to the list because I think something important has come up.

READ THIS CAREFULLY.

For any x such that x has a turn, x must be a player. If Rich has a turn, then he must be a player. Rich is not a player. Therefore, Rich cannot have a turn.

Does that address your concern? I think you're probalby questioning the truthfulness of assumption 1. Rules 201/1 and 202/1 imply (at least to me) that turns are solely the province of Players, that turns exist only due to their corresponding Player, and would cease to be upon the non-existance of said player.

I claim that if you see that in the rules, then you're seeing too much. At most you should be able to say that 201, 202 => that turns' beginnings require players.

It's the ceasing that I'm questioning. 201 says each player shall take "one whole turn." This implies that there are deviant turns, which are bad.

Rule 201/1, mutable
Order of Play

Players shall alternate alphabetical order by surname, taking one whole turn apiece. Turns may not be skipped or passed, and parts of turns may not be omitted. All Players begin with zero points.

Rule 202/1, mutable
Parts of a Turn and Proposal Scoring

One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) subtracting 291 from the ordinal number of the proposal, multiplying the result by the fraction of favorable votes it received, rounded to the nearest integer, and adding the resulting value to the Player's score.

Note the under-emphasized (heh heh) portions [omitted, Admin.]. I posit that by moving on to the next turn, after Rich's turn had officially started, we or somebody did at least one of the following: skipped or passed a turn, Rich's; omitted the first part to Rich's turn; omitted the second part to Rich's turn. It's arguable that we didn't do the first, as we had at least begun the turn. The second two are IMO just plain true, since we started Rich's turn, and when we moved on to the next turn, neither (1) or (2) in 202 had occurred.

Thus, I'll call for judgment on the following statement: Former player Rich Peters did not complete a whole turn, as described in rule 202/1, and thus rule 201/1 was violated.

I exclude Joel Uckelman, Jill Wittrock, and Jeff Schroeder from the pool. Joel because I'd like this statement to be judged TRUE, Jill because I'd like the judge to be responsive, and Jeff because it's putatively his turn now, and we don't want any funny business with Jeff being determined the one who broke the rules, by taking the next turn. Sorry, Jeff. :)

If the judgment is TRUE, we must then determine who broke the rule. If it wasn't Rich then things get hazy.

Former player Rich Peters did not complete a whole turn, but more importantly did not ever begin a turn at all.

As Osborn pointed out, Rule 202 describes a turn as "two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) subtracting 291 from the ordinal number of the proposal, multiplying the result by the fraction of favorable votes it received, rounded to the nearest integer, and adding the resulting value to the Player's score.

While it has been our custom to assume a turn as beginning immediately following the completion of the previous turn, this is stated nowhere in the rules, nor is it stated that it must always be someone's turn.

Therefore, no turn was skipped, passed or partially omitted, and rule 201 was not violated.

exclusions: Matt Kuhns

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

The name "Berserker Nomic" is vulgar or profane under Rule 313/0.

I name Matt Kuhns as not to judge this RFJ because it is his suggested game name that is being called into question.

Rule 313 says (among other things): Any player has the right protest an elected name on grounds that it is profane or vulgar within 48 hours of its passage.

The American Heritage dictionary describes profane as being: Showing contempt or irreverance towards God or sacred things; blasphemous.

Under Rule 313 I protest the name Berserker Nomic. If I show that it is profane or vulgar this RFJ should be successful. I choose to try for profane. Something is profane if it shows either contempt OR irreverance towards either God OR sacred things. Not wanting to involve myself in a theological debate on Nomic's status as a God. I decide to demonstrate that Nomic is a sacred thing, and that the name Berserker Nomic shows contempt for this sacred thing.

Contempt (from the same source) is: Open disrespect or willful disobedience of the authority of a court of law or a legislative body.

Sacred is: Worthy of respect; venerable.

Note that this interpretation is consistent: both definitions speak of disrespect. I ask, among a group defined by a common participation in a rule game which requires respect of the rules to be played, what is most venerable? The game and rules themseles. Moreover, what is a Nomic but a legislative body?

How does the name Berserker Nomic disrespect a legislative body? By drawing on a word like berserk which is defined (in the same source as above) as: Destructivey or frenetically violent; deranged.

If a nomic describes itself thusly it does two things: (1) It calls into question (by reference) the respect for the rules which is necessary to play the game when it mentions violent derangment (a state clearly not conducive to care and respect for delicate rule systems)

or

(2) It indicates a dangerous predatory bent. What can a nomic game hope to be frenetically violent against but other nomics. This is a much more egregious disrespect of other nomics, other legislative bodies. (Not to mention the fact that pragmatically speaking, this name might lead other nomics to distrust us.)

By this reasoning, I believe that whoever judges this RFJ will see that agreement with this RFJ is required.

Mueller himself makes no claim of "Berserker Nomic" being vulgar, so that is not worth comment.

I must admit that I have rarely been witness to a more twisted pile of "dictionary logic." Mueller's argument takes "profane" out of context, uses words from its definition out of context, continuing so until he can finally twist it into what he wants it to mean, disrespectful of accepted connotation or even rational denotation.

The intent of including the word "profane" in Rule 313/0 could have been equally accomplished by the word "obscene." This is the appropriate conotation of "profane." As Mueller makes no arguement as to the obscenity of "Berserker Nomic," his claim is false.

no exclusions

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

The name "Berserker Nomic" is vulgar and should be chucked.

Already having witnessed the failing of this attempt once, I will give it another shot, from another angle. As joel pointed out, berserker is an epithet applied to viking warriors. Myself having descended from said warriors, I am mortally offended that my fellow colleagues would adopt as a name for a game I am playing a derogatory racial slur. If you racist bastards don't take it back right now I'll sue your ass. Anyway, I'm sure we would all agree that racial slurs are vulgar by their very nature. Hence, it is clear that this name is vulgar and obscene (although not necessarily profane).

According to Rule 220/0, "Judgments have the force of rules until they are overturned or no longer apply." The previous judgement stated that "Berserker Nomic" is not vulgar. This can only be overturned by an appeal.

exclusions: Mike Jensen, Tom Plagge, Joel Uckelman

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

There can not be any sound distinction made between a given "player" in Berserker Nomic and the physical entity that controls the "player".

A little preamble: -Trust me on this: it's important. If I were just sitting at my computer and read what I'm about to call for judgement on, I'd think this was the most cretin call for judgement thus far, except, of course, for the CFJs that Damon initiated earlier. But trust me, it's important.

Now, Mike Jensen, Joel Uckelman, Tom Plagge and I have already discussed this matter at length, so neither Mike, Joel, nor Tom P. will be included in the judging pool.

The reading of Rule 2/0 (which defines a Player) states the following: "A Player shall be defined as a game entity who is represented by one and only one real, living human being who consents to said representation. ..."

The definition of represented in Webster's New World Dictionary states: "1. to present or picture to the mind ... 6. a) to present, produce, or perform (a play, etc.) b) to act the part of (a charactor), as in a play 7. to act or stand in place of; be an agent, proxy or substitute for..."

This clearly defines that a Player is a represented by and separated from one real, living human being. An example of this is the pieces of a chess game with each piece representing a player. When a piece is removed, the corresponding player doesn't disappear or die.

exclusions: Nick Osborn

Ruling: TRUE

Statement:

God violates our definition of player, and therefore may not be added as one.

Rule 2/0 places several restrictions on what a Player can be:

1. Must be one and only one being.
2. Must be real.
3. Must be human.
4. Must consent.
5. Must have a surname.

We must be able to verify all of these, and I posit that none of them can be known with any reasonable degree of certitude.

1. There has been considerable debate as to the nature of the Christian God. Multiple heresies in the Church dealt with this, for instance, the Arians. Ultimately, they were all excommunicated and violence ensued. This type of heresy keeps coming back, and is still not settled.

2. What incontrovertable evidence do we have that God is real? If anyone has some, I'd like them to produce it now.

3. Again, see 1. The Arian Heresy addresses this as well. If Jesus of Nazareth was the only human part of God, and Jesus is dead, then God cannot be said to have any human component.

4. If you can talk to God to get His consent, I'd like to have a word with Him.

5. What is God's surname? God? Damn? So is he God God? Bob God (or Robert God, as Nate says)? The easiest way to resolve this would be to ask him. For that, see 4.

Rule 309/2 mandates that to be admitted as Players, entities meet these requirements. God appears to meet none of them. Therefore, this statement shold be judged false.

Additionally, I (nor Josh, if I'm not mistaken) would find it a problem to have a player in which I don't believe. As an Administrator, I'm not sure how I would handle that situation.

Some of the more common issues raised have been

1. Must be one and only one being.
2. Must be real.
3. Must be human.
4. Must consent.
5. Must have a surname.

Well in answer to 1, 2, 3, and 5. There is only one God, he is real and human, and his name is Jesus Christ. Showing consent seems to be the problem here. Consent has always been assumed whenever a player has been sponsored in the past, but there was also the assumption that and player could send the person nominated for playerhood an email at anytime asking their consent. As far as I know God doesn't send emails. As for Tom's prophecies from God, these need to be tested as suggested in 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21. If Tom could provide proof of the divine inspiration of his emails, say by predicting the Dow Jones for a week straight, then I say this matter deserves more consideration. If he is found to be a false prophet then I say we accept Kuhns' proposal about burning Tom at the stake.

exclusions: Jason Durheim, Adam Haar

Ruling: UNRESOLVED

Statement:

God violates our definition of player, and therefore may not be added as one.

I would like to appeal the judgment, not because of the final decision, but because of the reasoning and the comments. I disagree with the absolute truth of this statement in Judge Bailey's decision:

>There is only one God, he is real and
>human, and his name is Jesus Christ.

I find it strange how quickly he came upon these conclusions. There is no explanation of how he came to these, and frankly, I find it not in the spirit of Berserker Nomic to be so careless in the consideration of a CFJ. It do agree with Dakota's discourse on the consent factor, but his non-existent explanations for the other four problems give me no reason to believe these conclusions were come to by reason. I say "by reason" because I think reason is the very foundation upon which our game lies. If we can not trust reason as a stable ground for this game, what can we trust? I believe these conclusions I have mentioned above were not come to with the proper amount of attention to reason.

Therefore, I again ask that this decision be repealed so that we might have a more clear understanding of all the reasons why God can't play in Nomic.

no exclusions

Ruling: TRUE

Statement:

Decisions made by the Court of Appeals are final, and may not themselves be appealed.

The problem in question stems from an ambiguity in the second section of Rule 214/1. If "Judgment" and "Notice of Dismissal" here refer both to the lower courts and the Appellate Court, then it would seem that Appeals can be made indefinitely. If, however, Rule 214/1 section 2 seems to correspond to section 1 -- that is, the "Judgment" in section 2 is a direct result of the "Request for Judgment" in section 1 -- then this excludes Judgments on Appeal from further appeal.

Rule 216/1 allows Judges to consider "game-custom and the spirit of the game" in cases when "the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue." As it seems that the latter interpretation is more in accordance with game-custom and legal precedent (q.v. J25), I am inclined to rule TRUE on the statement. However, I do so with some reservation: this statement has allowed a lower court Judge to alter the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court.

exclusions: Nick Osborn, Jason Durheim

Ruling: UNRESOLVED

Statement:

Decisions made by the Court of Appeals are final, and may not themselves be appealed.

I would like to appeal this decision, on the basis of the final statement Joel makes. Joel himself has said repeatedly that he does not want the judiciary to have this kind of power. Why, then, does he use it?

I exclude from judge selection Nick Osborn and Jason Durheim.

no exclusions

Ruling: UNRESOLVED

Statement:

Players in Limbo are not to be counted for voting purposes.

no exclusions

Ruling: TRUE

Statement:

Jason Durheim is not in Limbo.

Rule 319/0, Limbo says in part "B. A player may go into Limbo only by a. Publicly declaring him/herself in Limbo or b. Taking no Nomic-related action (voting, proposing, commenting) for a period of fifteen days."

Therefore, the only way for Jason Durheim to be in Limbo at this time is time is by his public declaration. Joel publicly said so so, not Jason. Therefore Jason is not in Limbo.

I think that this Joel's public notice is not sufficient because:

1. Rule 106/1 Public Nature of and Effects of Proposals says "All proposed rule-changes shall be posted to nomic@iastate.edu before they are voted on. If they are adopted, they shall guide play in the form on which they were voted."

This is the only rule which indicates what public might mean and if refers to the mailing list, not conversations with Joel. And Joel's posts to the mailing list can only put "him/herself" into Limbo as per R319.

2. It might set a bad precedent to be loose and messy with the formalities of rule following: remember when "God" tried to enter the game by informing players who posted for him, that problem would have been eliminated if the person requesting playerhood had to publicly request it. (Unless this RFJ is False)

There is no formal definition of a public declaration for the purposes of Berserker nomic, but I believe that this use of "public" implies a message to the mailing list. In any case, a chance conversation with only one member of Berserker nomic does not count as a public declaration. Jason Durheim told only Joel that he was going into limbo, and then Joel made the public statement. Thus, Jason Durheim never made a public declaration that he went into Limbo as necessary in rule 319.

exclusions: Joel Uckelman, 2 undetermined

Ruling: UNRESOLVED

Statement:

Appeals to the ruling in judgment 31 (above) may not be limited as per the ruling in judgment 31.

My reasoning is simple: until the matter presented in CFJ 31 is put to judicial rest, it seems quite improper to use the results of CFJ 31 during further determination (i.e. appelation) of the truth or falsity of the claim presented in CFJ 31. If one wants to do that one ought to pass a rule, as Mr. Uckelman should have prompted one to do in the first place.

For this CFJ, I exclude Joel Uckelman, and the first two players (who are not Damon Luloff) left on the list of possible exclusions, after the appellate court for the above call is selected.

no exclusions

Ruling: TRUE

Statement:

Excluded players must be specified by name to be valid exclusions.

In Josh's RFJ 34, he does the following:

>For this CFJ, I exclude Joel Uckelman, and the first two players
>(who are not Damon Luloff) left on the list of possible exclusions,
>after the appellate court for the above call is selected.

This asks me to determine which players are to be excluded from the list based not on explicitly naming the players, but rather on a method for selecting them. Rule 215/0 states that exclusions be "a Player selected by the Complainant." The above does not name Players, and therefore is not legal. Moreover, it will not be possible to select Judges for RFJ 34 until this matter is resolved.

Setting up a system to remove Players from the judging pool is not the same as selecting them. A selection of a Player can only be made by naming that Player. If Kortbein needed more information to name the Players he wished to exclude, he should have waited until that information was available.

exclusions: Jason Durheim, Jeff Schroeder

Ruling: UNRESOLVED

Statement:

Excluded players must be specified by name to be valid exclusions.

I call for an appeal on this judgment, because it appears that Mr. Osborn has simply provided us with a statement of his opinion, rather than attempting to reason out what might be the proper judgment.

I exclude Jason Durheim, Jeff Schroeder, and Joel Uckelman.

no exclusions

Ruling: TRUE

Statement:

Osborn is, and Uckelman is.

1 (1) On A
2 (2) Uj A
1 (3) ExOn 1 EI
2 (4) ExUn 2 EI
1,2 (5) ExOx & ExUx 3,4 &I

That is, if Nick is an Osborn, and Joel is an Uckelman, then there exists at least one x such that x is an Osborn and at least one x such that x is an Uckelman. In any case, even if Nick is somehow an impostor, I know other people who are (or claim to be) Osborns (e.g. Nick's parents).

The point of contention here may be at my assumption that Nick is an Osborn. I've never heard him called anything else (except "Remo the Fuckwad" by Damon), and he gets Nick Osborn's mail, and Nick Osborn's parents visit him occasionally -- so either he has done an excellent job of assuming someone else's identity or really is Nick Osborn. If he has merely become Nick Osborn, I think we are still justified in calling him by the name he has assumed.

The more logically astute may charge me with begging the question above -- that I am implicitly assuming the existance of Nick and Joel in lines 1 and 2 and using that to prove my point. If Nick doesn't exist, then I don't know how all of this stuff that's not mine made it's way in to my room; if I don't exist, I can't fathom how it is that I can sit here pontificating about my existance. In summation, if this statement is false, then either I have a figment of my imagination for a roommate, or you're all playing a game Administered by a nonexistant entity. Application of Occam's Razor leads me to side with my halucination rather than mass halucination, but points even more strongly to a TRUE ruling.

exceptions: Josh Kortbein, Tom Mueller, Joel Uckelman

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

Either Uckelman is, or Osborn is.

I'm fairly convinced that both Uckelman and Osborn are, making the truth value for this statement "false." Game custom would seem to point toward the being of both players, anyway. And since being is a requirement for being a player, and both Uckelman and Osborn are players, I am forced to conclude that both entities, in fact, are. Another point: the statement as written seems to indicate that Uckelman's and Osborn's existence are mutually exclusive. I can't really justify that. There seems to be plenty of room in the Pleasure Matrix for the both of them. I would be inclined to dismiss this RFJ except that, on account of Osborn's new codeine dependence, I'm afraid the matter would persist.

exclusions: Nick Osborn, Jeff Schroeder, Aaron Woell

Ruling: TRUE

Statement:

The results of the recent round of voting must be overturned, as the turn was not run in accordance with the rules.

The rule "Parts of a Turn" says

Any Player may make a new Proposal during the proposal and debate period. Additionally, the Player currently taking a turn is required to make a Proposal during this period. The duration of the proposal and debate period shall be the longer of 204 hours (8.5 days) or until the current Player makes a Proposal. Should the current player forfeit during this period, its duration shall be 204 hours.

During the recent voting period, Jason Durheim was originally required to make a proposal, as it was his turn. The rule "Limbo" says

C. If a player is in Limbo when it is his/her turn, or if a player goes into Limbo during his/her turn, then that player forfeits his/her turn to the next player in the rotation.

So clearly, Jason forfeited his turn to Nate Ellefson.

Now, "forfeits" in the "Limbo" rule is a poor choice of words, because the same word is used in "Parts of a Turn." In "Limbo," "forfeits" clearly refers to the turn. In "Parts of a Turn" I claim that, according to game custom, "forfeit" refers to one's exiting from the game, not simply the forfeiture of a turn, as some may choose to read it.

The ramifications: the voting period should not have ended until Nate made a proposal, as the period had already lasted longer than 204 hours. One could claim that the period should last another 204 hours past Nate's assumption of the turn, but I'm happy with it lasting until Nate makes a proposal.

From the judging pool, I exclude Nick Osborn, Jeff Schroeder, and Aaron Woell. [If I'm not mistaken, that leaves only Joel.]

I find the Complainant's reasoning sound in it's entirety. It is now Nate Ellefson's, turn which will last until he makes an active proposal, and the voting and scoring are hereby voided.

>From the judging pool, I exclude Nick Osborn,
>Jeff Schroeder, and Aaron Woell. [If I'm not
>mistaken, that leaves only Joel.]

As an aside, I find it vaguely disturbing that it was possible to know that I was going to be Judge -- this, and other recent events, may highlight a flaw in the current Judicial system.

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

A GWIB may not force its players, if selected as Judges, to return responses to Statements that are contrary to the rules, and more specifically, P23 in the GWIB Alphanomic is illegal.

A.Tom Mueller's rule P23 in the GWIB Alphanomic reads thusly: "If this rule applies to all Alphanomic players, then all Alphanomic players must judge True any RFJ which furthers either (1) discord, (2) the power of Alphanomic, or (3) both of these."

B.Rule 228/0 sets out the Judicial responses and their meanings: "DISMISSED indicates that a Statement cannot be evaluated as to its veracity, or does not address a rules-related matter. TRUE indicates that a Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically true. FALSE indicates that a Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically false."

C.Rule 318/0, IV.A prevents GWIBs from in any way modifying the ruleset: "A GWIB cannot create, destroy, or modify rules."

I hold that B and C entail that the enactment of P23 is illegal. The definitions of the responses define them in relation to the actual truth or falsehood of Statements, while P23 requires that Statements be judged in some other fashion. Thus, P23 is an attempt to modify the ruleset, something strictly prohibited by Rule 318/0, and must not be allowed to be executed. Note that the same reasoning applies in the general case as well.

I know this will be appealed, so I'm not going to say much about it.

A GWIB may not force its players, if selected as Judges, to return responses to Statements that are contrary to the rules, and more
(I find this half of the statement to be true.)

specifically, P23 in the GWIB Alphanomic is illegal.
(I find this half of the statement to be false because it applies only to Tom.)

Let's see, if I'm not mistaken T+F=F (Pardon if my symbols aren't correct.)

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

A GWIB may not force its players, if selected as Judges, to return responses to Statements that are contrary to the rules, and more specifically, P23 in the GWIB Alphanomic is illegal.

Kortbein, Mueller:

Despite Joel's request for withdrawal of appeal, I think the following clause:

Valid responses to Statements is defined as the set {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED}. DISMISSED indicates that a Statement cannot be evaluated as to its veracity, or does not address a rules-related matter. TRUE indicates that a Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically true. FALSE indicates that a Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically false. All other responses are invalid.

indicates that we should hand down a FALSE ruling, as Damon's reasoning was sound, and DISMISSED is an incorrect ruling because the statement can and in fact already has been evaluated.

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

A GWIB may not force its players, if selected as Judges, to return responses to Statements that are contrary to the rules, and more specifically, P23, if implemented as a binding rule within the GWIB Alphanomic, is illegal in the context of Berserker Nomic.

Attention! Please read this before appealing. While it is obviously true that a GWIB may not force its players to return responses that are contrary to the rules, it is not necessarily true that P23, if implemented is illegal in the context of Berserker.

First of all there is no such rule as P23 in any GWIB that I am aware of. Second, if it is J23 that this is referring to, this would wtill not necessarily be true.

J23: If this rule applies to all Alphanomic players, then all Alphanomic players must judge True any RFJ which furthers either (1) discord, (2) the power of Alphanomic, or (3) both of these.

This rule does not necessitate that players return responses contrary to the rules. It is possible that this could be in complete accordance with the rules. Therefore, if J23 (not P23, mind you) were implemented it would not necessarily be illegal in the context of Berserker Nomic, although it COULD possibly be.

Ruling: TRUE

Statement:

This CFJ will cause at least one person to lose 10 points.

Mike lost 10 points as a result of Damon's CFJ. QED.

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

A player in limbo who sends a message to the mailing list which does anything other than re-state that the player is in limbo has performed an action equivalent to publicly stating "I'm out of limbo."

Note that I consider a message like

Blah blah blah proposal.
I'm in limbo.

to be doing something other than re-stating that the player is in limbo, as there is other, non limbo-putting content. So the player is removed from limbo by such a message, which at the end of the message puts them back into limbo.

According to paragraph B of R319/0, "A player may go into Limbo . . . by . . . Publicly declaring him/herself in Limbo." Similarly, paragraph A states that "Publicly declaring him/herself out of Limbo" is one of two ways (the other being forfeit) to remove oneself from Limbo. The method of declaring oneself to be in Limbo has been narrowly construed as personally sending a message to the list unambiguously stating "I am in Limbo" or the like. The act of "public declaration" has always before been held to be a definate act, i.e. a clear statement must be present for it to have occurred.

There is no indication within R319/0 that a different sense of "public declaration" is meant with respect to coming out of Limbo. Thus, an explicit statement is likewise required to exit Limbo.

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

"Total number of vote-casting entities" in Rule 307/2 refers to the total number of eligible voters at any given moment.

The predicate in the sentence under judgment is "fail to submit a ballot during the voting period..." As such, it seems that "total number of vote-casting entities" refers to the total number of eligible voters at the first time at which the voting period could normally have been considered to end, i.e. after the 36 hour period stated in 307/2.

After this point, "total number of vote-casting entities" seems to best refer to the total number of eligible voters at any given moment, as there is no future point at which the determination may otherwise be made, as described in the paragraph above.

Before this point, "total number of vote-casting entities" is ambiguous. I choose to reject any possible interpretations of the phrase BEFORE the 36 hour period has ended simply because to do so seems in keeping with the spirit of the rule, if not the straightforward interpretation of its second sentence.

Due to this trichotomy, I must rule FALSE because the statement presented for judgment makes no distinction as to the "types" of moments which do seem to be identifiable in the voting process.

If players would like to see the phrase under question interpreted differently at times before any particular 36 hour voting period has transpired, they are advised to do so with the passage of proposals.

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

Uckelman is not the Administrator, rather he shall, for Berserker Nomic purposes, be considered a tasteful shrubbery.

In an abuse of his Administrative privileges, Uckelman shared infrormation with me that I could use to effect Berserker Nomic. We discussed the ramifications of my re-entering Limbo. This is in blatant violation of Rule dreihundertzweiundsechzig.

Because Uckelman has done something that the Administrator cannot do, Uckelman cannot be the Administrator.

1. I do not believe the information Joel shared was "privelaged information" as stated in rule 326/2. I don't even know what "privelaged" means. (That's how its spelled on the web page anyway.)

2. If this means "privileged," as my dictionary spells it, I still don't believe Joel would have violated any rule. The sentence "The remaining three proposals have neither necessarilly passed nor necesarily failed." is fairly obvious because they had not at the time either passed or failed. The sentence "No change in the number of eligible voters coupled with an extra ballot (Nick's, as he came out of Limbo to vote) could cause voting to end on the remaining proposals, although more votes could also cause an end to voting." seems to be Joel's interpretation of the rules, not anything from the administrator's privileged information.

3. I don't believe Nick's reasoning for Joel not being the administrator. If the Administrator does something, it is not something the Administrator cannot do. It may be a violation of the rules for the administrator to do something, but I really don't want to think of the consequences of the violation of rule 101/1.

4. Joel is still carrying on Administratorial duties, and I really don't want to make him stop. Further, according to rule 326, "The Administrator is Joel Uckelman."

5. Being considered a shrubbery is in no way inconsistent with being the administrator. We could call Joel "Administrator the Shrubbery Uckelman."

Ruling: TRUE

Statement:

One of the duties of the Administrator is to use a random method to select judges.

Rule 215/1 says judges will be selected randomly. Rule 326/2 states that one of the duties of the Administrator is Judge selection.

Rule 215 states that judges will be selected randomly, and Rule 326 states that one duty of the Administrator is judge selection. It follows that it is the duty of the Administrator to select judges randomly. There is no contradiction here; Rule 215 simply details the method to be used by the Administrator.

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

If a Player and an Administrator are represented by the same real human being, they are separate entities for the purposes of Berserker nomic.

Rule 101/1 states "All Players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect." It does not mention the Administrator. Rule 326/2 defines the office of Administrator, but does not require the Administrator to be a player or follow the rules. Rule 229/0, which defines offices, does not require office holders to be players.

Until such time as the rules state that such a dichotomy exists, I abide by the game custom that the Administrator, though special, is still a player, and can thus the two can be considered one entity.

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

The Administrator is not required to follow the rules of Berserker nomic.

Rule 101/1 states "All Players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect." It does not mention the Administrator. Rule 326/2 defines the office of Administrator, but does not require the Administrator to be a player or follow the rules. Rule 229/0, which defines offices, does not require office holders to be players.

The rules state that the Administrator is Joel Uckelman. I think we can agree that Administrator Uckelman and Joel Uckelman the player are a single entity. Therefore, since Joel Uckelman is a player in Berserker Nomic, he must follow the rules. Were Joel not a player, and were he not explicitly mentioned in rule 326, I might be more inclined to buy this argument.

If you are really all that concerned about Administrator Uckelman breaking the rules, though, you could propose an amendment to make it absolutely explicit. Perhaps, in keeping with the spirit of the game thus far, you could even threaten to replace him with a tasteful shrubbery.

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

Rules 375-377 require actual, tasteful shrubberies in stead of the sequences ("[a tasteful shrubbery]") of text currently in place.

First, note that the rules do not currently define WHAT form rules can take and what they can contain so we've no help from the actual rules.

The statement fundamentally asserts that these shrubbery states exist on the same "plane of nomic existance" and that the "text shrubbery" is currently, wrongly in the place where the "real shrubbery" should go.

I believe that the actual situation in this case is that "actual, tasteful shrubberies" are in fact in rules 375-377 and they are REPRESENTED by the text "[a tasteful shrubbery]".

Rule 228/0 Judgments says in part:

Valid responses to Statements is defined as the set {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED}. DISMISSED indicates that a Statement cannot be evaluated as to its veracity, or does not address a rules-related matter. TRUE indicates that a Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically true. FALSE indicates that a Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically false. All other responses are invalid.

I wasn't sure if this RFJ should be DISMISSED or FALSE. I eventually decided that the relationship between "our representations of the game in text" and "the things in the game themselves" was an issue that should be considered rules-related and that the fundamental premise of the statement (that there was no Use/Mention distinction) was false.

Ruling: DISMISSED

Statement:

Nick Osborn should purchase three such tasteful shrubberies, so that the Administrator might more accurately record the current state of the rules. Upon purchase these shrubberies should be donated to the Nomic, and kept in the Pleasure Matrix by the Administrator.

A single statement was not presented for judgment, q.v. Judgment 15.

Ruling: DISMISSED

Statement:

Nick Osborn should purchase three tasteful shrubberies, such that (a) the Administrator might more accurately record the current state of the rule set, (b) the shrubberies be donated to the Nomic, (c) the shrubberies be kept in the Pleasure Matrix by the Administrator.

Joel, you insufferable wank. Are you this bad around your mom?

There's a single fucking statement for you, and if you think otherwise, I refer you to W.V. Quine, _The Philosophy of Logic_, ch. 1.

There are no provisions in the rules for purchase, the pleasure matrix, or nomic ownership (much less nomic wide acceptance of donations). Additionally, shrubberies (while being defined in the rules operationally) have no game effects that I can see.

This leads me to believe that this statement references real humans, real shrubberies (the kinds with leaves, not the kinds in our ruleset), and real purchases involving US currency, not Subers.

Rule 228/0 Judgments says in part:

Valid responses to Statements is defined as the set {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED}. DISMISSED indicates that a Statement cannot be evaluated as to its veracity, or does not address a rules-related matter.

The second clause of the dismissed line is the one to look for.