J(17) 14.ii.1998

Call for Judgement

Ian Collier made the following Call for Judgement:

The speaker, Owen Massey, commented:

By the way, Ian, you didn't need to include the third statement as a Judge is allowed to provide their own interpretation if it differs from all statements listed in the call for judgement.

The Judge selected was Nick Fortescue.


Creation of Puppets does not fall under Rule 442.


A puppet is defined explicitly as a type of player. So the remaining parts of the rule to consider are

  1. The use of the verb entices.
  2. The use of the word non-player.

As regards to 1), no enticement is done. The puppet is forced to come into existence by the proposal that creates it. Switching to my handy dictionary, entice means "to attract by exciting hope or desire" both of which a puppet clearly does not have before it is created.

However, more importantly, non-player is not defined in the ruleset. This means I have to give my interpretation to this. I interpret this as any(one/thing) which is not currently a player. A puppet does not exist (as a concrete object) until the rule proposing it is passed, and it is then a player. To assert that a puppet exists because the concept of it has been proposed as a rule is rubbish. It is like saying to my tutor that my work exists because I considered doing it.

So creating puppets does not fall under rule 442, on two counts.

The Speaker commented:

I have reset the scores of both Puppets to zero and removed Ian Snell's 40 point bonus for enticement.

This Judgement is included in Issue 6 of the OxNomicker.
[ Judgements index | Previous | Next | OxNomic ]
Created 18.ii.98 by Colin Batchelor, OxNomic Recorder