Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #338
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Friday, October 17 1997       Volume 02 : Number 338

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 00:04:24 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 465 Appeal Verdict

CFJ 465 has been overturned to TRUE, with (by default),
a 1 point penalty to the original judge.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 465
  Subject: Rule Numbers
Initiator: ThinMan
Submitted: 97-09-17 18:12
    Judge: two-star (selected Sep 17, 1997, 21:32)
Judgement: FALSE
   Appeal: TRUE

Statement:

The action of changing Rule 1's number is forbidden by Rule 1.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

Rule 1 forbids that it be "changed in any way."  I claim that changing
rule 1's number is one manner of changing rule 1, and is, therefore,
forbidden by rule 1.

There is some confusion on this matter; principally, I think, because
rule 303 specifies that rule numbers are unownable entities.  Balsamic
Dragon has asserted that from that specification it follows that rule
numbers are not, in fact, any part of the rule they are associated with,
to the extent that changing a rule's number in no way constitutes
changing that rule itself.  To my knowledge, there is no other
indication in the rules or game custom that rule numbers are so totally
divorced from the rules themselves.  There are, however, numerous
indications to the contrary.

I begin with the selfsame rule 303 that seems to have caused the
confusion.  Here are the first two sentences of section (I), the
second being the one causing all the fuss:
 
        Each rule has an effective ordinal number, hereafter referred to
        simply as the rule's number.  Rule numbers and proposal numbers
        are unownable entities.

Rule 303 indicates that each rule "has" a number, but it then goes on
to say that rule numbers are unownable entities.  So what does it mean
for a rule to "have" a number?  The following definitions, taken from
Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary seemed to be the ones
that would most likely be applicable:

1. to hold in the hand or in control; own; possess.
2. to possess, hold, or contain as a part, characteristic, attribute,
   or associated feature.

The judge should, of course, consider any other possible definitions
of "have" that he considers possibly applicable, but none of the (many)
others seemed to me to be anywhere near as reasonable.

Suppose definition (1) is the correct one.  Although "unownable" is
used in many places in the rules, it is never defined.  The customary
definition comes from the English definition, "cannot be owned."
The second sentence of rule 303, which says that rule numbers are
unownable, would thus override the first sentence, and therefore rules
wouldn't actually have numbers after all.  I think I am safe in
asserting that any interpretation of the current rules that indicates
that rules do not have numbers is incorrect.

That leaves definition (2).  Is it also inconsistent with the second
sentence of rule 303?  I don't see why it should be.  I see no reason
why an entity cannot be an attribute or feature of another entity.
Definition (2) is, in my opinion, the interpretation of rule 303 that
has been customary since the beginning of the game when the current
rule 303 was rule 107 (immutable).  The entityhood of rule numbers
seems pointless to me, but I see no reason for it to have changed
the fact that rule numbers are attributes of rules.

The judge will also find examples in the proposal and S.R. archives
which demonstrate that, at least at the times of those proposals and
S.R.'s, changing a rule's number was accomplished by amending or
otherwise changing the rules.

If we accept, then, that a rule's number as an attribute or feature
of the rule, it follows that changing that number does indeed
constitute changing that rule in some way.  Changing rule 1's number
is therefore forbidden by rule 1.

two-star's reasoning:

The initiators reasoning hinges on the interpretation of the the 
sentence "Each rule has an effective ordinal number, hereafter referred 
to simply as the rule's number." in rule 303, particularly the meaning 
of the word "has" in this sentence. While I agree that there is no basis 
for considering a rule to own its number, it seems that the initiator is 
playing a bit of linguistic slight of hand in simplifying definition (2) 
to "contain as an attribute." It could just as easily be 
interpreted as "hold as an associated feature." For example, a kaa of 
land may be said to "have" a building with there being no implication of 
ownership or containing. Rule 303 is silent as to which interpretation 
is correct, so we must look to game custom for an answer.

Certainly it is possible for an entity to contain another entity. Rule 
500 defines rules and the ruleset as entities, and that the ruleset 
contains rules is implicit from the definition of "ruleset." 
Another example is the case of towers, which "a player adds to a
building they own." However, in this case there is neither a clear 
implicit nor explicit definition of a rule number as part of a rule, so 
I am judging this cfj FALSE. I think that the general game custom on 
containership is stonger then the fact that we may interpret proposals 
that say "Amend rule y by changing its number to z," as they are 
intended. I agree that keeping rulenumbers as entities makes little 
sense, but here we are.

ThinMan's Appeal Reasoning:

Two-star has given some attention to my argument, and rejected the
proposition that rule numbers are parts of their rules, I am not
clear on exactly what interpretation he advances in its place,
however.  He implies that he may be considering rule numbers to be
"an associated feature" of a rule, though he does not outright say
that that is the case.  He has not, however, indicated why his
apparently preferred definition indicates a verdict of False.  

I do not necessarilly agree with two-star's assessment of my preferred
interpretation of rule 303, and I also think that it is at least
unclear that his preferred interpretation indicates a verdict of False.
In particular, there is precendent in Ackanomic for renumbering of
rules constituting changing the rules.  For instance, P1412 changed
what was then R491 (which governed allowable rule changes) so that
renumbering rules was a "rule change" specifically allowed of
proposals. This was brought into play in proposal 1444, which, among
other things changed rule 786's number to 595 _as a rule change_.  This
aspect of changing rule numbers as a valid rule change has been
employed many times since, as well.  Although renumbering rules is no
longer formally specified in the rules to be a rule change, no
alternative interpretation has been specified or even suggested until,
perhaps, P2304, the reason for this CFJ.

Indeed, the interpretation that changing rule numbers in fact
constitutes changing the rules is still a current one.  Among Vulcan's
actions when it had dictatorial power were at least two instances of
"changing the rules" by renumbering a rule.  These actions have been
harfed as if they were sensical, and no one has objected to them on
grounds of such not constituting rule changes.  They have, in general,
been accepted as having been successful (which distinguishes them from
Guy Fawkes' attempt to assume dictatorial power).

Two-star even appears to agree.  He said in his reasoning that "I think
that the general game custom on containership is stonger then the fact
that we may interpret proposals that say 'Amend rule y by changing its
number to z,' as they are  intended."  I do not think that game custom
on containership is very strong at all, but the fact that we can and do
interpret proposals as two-star described indicates that we consider
renumbering a rule to constitute changing that rule.  I can only
assume that in his fervor to counter my specific argument, two-star
overlooked this strong alternative indication that the CFJ should be
judged True.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

The arguments given in favor of a rule's renumbering not being a
change to that rule are, essentially, extrapolations from one possible
interpretation of relatively unrelated rules. No other arguments, such
as examples of game custom, have been offered to bolster that
interpretation's applicability; the argument seems to be entirely
that since rule numbers are their own entities, changes to them do
not necessarily constitute changes to the associated rules.

As the appealer has pointed out, however, there is no compelling
reason, based on normal English usage, to prefer this interpretation.
The example that the rule set is also an entity, and certainly
changing or renumbering a rule constitutes a change to the rule set.

Since the rules do not specifically exclude either interpretation, the
statement must give way to the strong game custom that renumbering a
rule is a change to that rule. One piece of evidence in favor of this
(which should be enough, as the Court cannot find any evidence
favoring the counter-interpretation) is provided by Rule 305 ("For
Personal Glory..."), which requires rule changes to be recorded under
the rule that was changed in the official copy. Rule renumbering has
been recorded in this fashion, along with all other rule changes,
since this rule was first created.

The Court therefore has chosen to overturn the original decision.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 00:05:10 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (Alfvaen)

Phoebe has been found by Alfvaen.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 00:23:38 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 466 Verdict

CFJ 466 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 466
  Subject: Itch
Initiator: Alfvaen
Submitted: 97-10-03 1:04
    Judge: Vynd (declined)
2nd Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (deadbeat)
3rd Judge: Malenkai (selected Oct 11, 1997, 9:51)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement: 

Onieros had a case of the Itch just before ThinMan's last Phoebe post.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

According to Rule 909:

   If it is ever the case that there are three (or more) players
   who consecutively found Phoebe's matchbox, but failed to post her
   wisdom, then conditions are right for an outbreak of the Itch. When
   conditions are right, any player who was the third most recent person
   to find Phoebe's matchbox will develop a case of the Itch.

It is indisputable that, during this most recent August and September,
fnord, breadbox, Niccolo Flychuck, and Guy Fawkes consecutively found
Phoebe's matchbox but failed to post her wisdom.  Guy Fawkes may no longer
be a player, but the other three still are, so it is also true that it is
the case that there are three players who consecutively found Phoebe's
matchbox but failed to post her wisdom.  Thus, conditions were right for an
outbreak of the Itch at any time after Niccolo Flychuck lost Phoebe's
matchbox on September 9th.

Similarly, while ThinMan was in possession of Phoebe's matchbox, Onieros
was the third most recent person to find Phoebe's matchbox.

Rule 909 goes on to say:

   There are three known cures for the Itch. Any player who has been
   afflicted with the Itch for 3 consecutive weeks will then recover. Any
   player who posts a poem of 5 lines or more in praise of Phoebe, the
   Steel Flea, recovers immediately, unless they are the Poet Laureate,
   in which case the poem must be at least 15 lines. Finally, if any
   player, in accordance with this Rule, posts the wisdom of Phoebe, then
   all players afflicted with a case of the Itch immediately recover. It
   is customary for these players to be extremely grateful towards the
   person who cured them.

Onieros only became the third most recent person to find Phoebe's matchbox
when ThinMan obtained it on September 29th, less than three weeks ago.  E
posted no poems in praise of Phoebe in the time between then and ThinMan's
post, which cured him, but unfortunately infected Archie Leach.

Essentially, the issue here is whether Vynd's wording works as he no doubt
intended, or whether he needs to add another clause to include only the
most recent drought of Phoebe wisdom.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

The rules do not allow the judge to consider intent when interpreting
them, except in the case where intent falls under "spirit of the game",
and the conditions of rule 215 are met.  Rule 909 is not unclear, silent,
or inconsistent on the matter in question, so those conditions of rule
215 are not met.

Alfvaen has described the interpretation of rule 909 required by rules
101 and 215, and the facts are as presented, hence the statement I
was asked to judge is TRUE.

I will take this opportunity to point out that it would be fairly easy
to change rules 101 and 215 to put intent or common sense higher in the
food chain, but, despite holy wars about strict-constructionalist 
interpretation of the rules, no one has ever bothered to attempt to do
this, for whatever reason.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 23:17:48 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Phoebe (Alfvaen)

> Phoebe has been found by Alfvaen.

Yes!  I might say that it's about time.  :-)  I've been looking forward to
reporting her wisdom.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Wallflowers:One Headlight
Current Book--Dean R. Koontz:Midnight
I want to see a magazine called Unpopular Science.

------------------------------

End of ackanomic digest V2 #338
*******************************