Ruling: DISMISSED

Statement:

'Ole Andersen' is not the same as 'Ole Anderson'.

The strings of characters are not the same. This, however, doesn't have anything to do with Berserker.

Ruling: TRUE

Statement:

'Ole Andersen' is not the same as 'Ole Anderson'.

1 Judgement 75 states that 'Ole Anderson' is to be burned at the Stake. That person is not me.

In the unqualified sense, "Ole Andersen" and '"Ole Anderson" are not the same because there is at least one way in which they are not identical: the composition of the strings. However, this in no way speaks to thing that the Complainant intended to have judged, i.e. whether "Ole Andersen" and "Ole Anderson" are the same qua Players. Thus, while it is a rules-releated matter (because it concerns the identity of Ole) and does not deserve dismissal, the truth of this statement does not resolve the matter at hand.

Ruling: TRUE

Statement:

Nick may not halt his sale of slack to Mary.

Nick made an open offer of slack, in any amount, to any party, given that that party "share." An offer of this sort is just like any specific trade between two people (i.e., of Subers, monkey's paws, etc.), except that by making the offer open Nick essentially accepted any comers without knowing who they were in advance.

One might say that Nick only accepted offers from those who met his conditions, i.e., "sharing." I contend that because his notion of sharing was not made clear, it is unfair of him to back out of the verbal contract into which he entered. According to Nick's offer, Mary is entitled to the rest of the slack that she wanted, as he made the offer all at once.

One possible interpretation of "share" which Nick seems not to have considered is that in which Mary takes slack, then later distributes it to other players.

It's important to set a strict precedent here regarding legality of trade under agreement. If Nick was willing to agree to a trade in which the terms were not well-defined, that's his own fault. The party to which he was tradying (Mary) should not lose the benefits of the trade.

The current rules are very unclear on a lot of the issues involved in this case, and my decision ultimately rested more on extrapolation from custom and intent than on actual rules. Having said that, I saw the issue this way: Rule 399 really only specifically addresses the sale of property through auction. Based on the way auctions and suber exchanges work, however, it can be considered a generally-accepted game custom that a sale would be complete immediately upon both the seller and buyer publicly announcing the sale. Therefore upon A Tasteful Shrubbery's (Nick's) pronouncement that he would sell the slack to Mary for zero subers, the sale was complete. As a result it was not possible for ATS to halt the sale because it was already over.

Ruling: TRUE

Statement:

Nick may not halt his sale of slack to Mary.

I wish to appeal the decision delivered by Kuhns.

He makes a reference to game custom but does not state any specific examples. I believe this is because there are no examples, so there is no precedent, so there is no game tradition.

He says it is possible to halt transfers only before they take place. As of yet, I have only transferred 1 (one) Slack to Mary. By Kuhns own reasoning, I should be able to prevent the transfer of the remaining 19 (nineteen).

In Kuhns' off the record statement, it is clear that he did not properly judge the statement. "I tried as best I could to address only the specific issue judgment had been requested for: the sale of Nick's slack." In fact, the judgement addresses the issue of halting the sale of Slack, not just the sale of Slack. "[W]hether Nick could still halt the transfer of the slack... [is] anyone's guess." As this issue would appear to be the heart of the RFJ, I believe Kuhns' confession that he didn't consider it demands that the statement be reexamined by the court.

I patiently await the validation of my actions.

Evidently, the sale has, in fact, occurred. Something which has occurred may not be halted.

It should be noted that although Mary has ownership the slack, she apparently does not have possession of it. Possession is, after all, nine-tenths the law. This ruling is silent on the topic of transferal of slack.

In general, all other things being equal, I'd like to see statements expressed in the positive (e.g., "Nick may halt his sale of slack to Mary") rather than the negative, since ruling FALSE on an already negative statement results in the requirement to parse a double-negative.

I'd also like to commend Joel on the cleverness of R455; I had my suspicions that this action may have, by now, fallen beyond the statute of limitations -- I have seen, upon further reflection, that this is not the case. -- Roger Carbol

This is not to say that Nick must use his slack transfers to transfer them to Mary. -- Ed Proescholdt

The sale has happened. It happened upon their agreement. The transfer is another matter, but Nick does not own the slack anymore. What to do about Nick's administration of slack belonging to Mary, is not a part of this question. -- Ole Andersen

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

In Rule 357/1, the Provocateur and 'X' refer to two different players.

The two are mentioned separately, and no mention is made of their being the same.

There is the implication within Rule 357 that the Provacateur and "X" are the same Player. This has been carried out in game tradition, as the have always been assumed to be the same Player. I cannot ignore the connection between the statements "X should be punished by The Mob" and "This causes [the Provocateur] to lose 50 points."

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

In Rule 357/1, the Provocateur and 'X' refer to two different players.

Since the statement "X should be punished by The Mob" is part of the Incitor's Mob-gathering ritual, no real connection exists between this statement and the statements in the 'business' part of the rule.

Similarly, there is no reason to believe that our respective Mamas would mind even the slightest, even though "What would your Mama think?" is a part of the Crowd Shamer's ritual.

This is ultimately a matter of the interpretation of some text. I think that game custom would support a common sense reading that "Provocateurs" are the sort of people who induce cries of "There outta be a law"... In short, the intent of the rule is clear. -- Tom Mueller

There does not seem to be any text in the rule which indicates that "X" should be bound to "Provocateur." This could lead one to judge TRUE. However, the context of the rule implies that "X" is to stand for whoever is chosen as the Provocateur, especially since the sentences in which "X" appears are in quotes, and as such have a signatory status similar to that of "example" appositive phrases, set off by "for example:" or "e.g."

An amendment to the rule would be appreciated, however, because technically, X is a free variable. -- Josh Kortbein

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose 50 points.

This burning must obviously be based on Rule 357/1.

J75 makes no statement about what _has_ happened, only about what _should_ happen (note also that there is no implication that anything _must_ happen). Additionally, it isn't clear what sense of "should" is meant here. That he should be burnt? By whom? And when? Due to a lack of clarity in J75, I can only rule that whoever "Ole Anderson" is, it has no clear effect on him.

Ruling: TRUE

Statement:

The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose 50 points.

1. _should_ equals _must_. If not, it would be a matter of personal preference, and not a Berserker-related question.

2. The key word is _burnt_. If J75 refers to Berserker-related matters, it _must_ refer to the only place in the rules that deals with burning: R357.

3. And the fact that _nobody_ appealed J75 clearly supports that it _does_ refer to Berserker-related matters.

Now we just have to figure out who Ole Anderson is. -- Mary Tupper

As several people have pointed out, "Ole Anderson" is not currently a player in Berserker Nomic. Therefore its rules (and judicial interpetations thereof) cannot cause him (whoever he is) to lose fifty points. -- Matt Kuhns, dissenting

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose 50 points.

I feel obliged to appeal 2 J79 if for no other reason than to postpone its decision awaiting the outcome of 2 J87, as whether or not non-Players can lose points seems vitally important to whether the burning of Ole Andersen according to 1 J75 could cause em to lose 50 points.

Secondly, it should be noted that the force of 1 J75 in this matter has not yet been resolved. Finally, it remains to be shown how anyone can be burnt without a corresponding angry mob, as at present, we have no rules on spontaneous combustion.

I rule FALSE based on the force of my comments as Judge on it's 1 Court and as the most recent Appellant in the case. -- Joel Uckelman

As several people have pointed out, "Ole Anderson" is not currently a player in Berserker Nomic. Therefore its rules (and judicial interpetations thereof) cannot cause him (whoever he is) to lose fifty points. -- Matt Kuhns

This space intentionally left blank. -- Josh Kortbein

I'll go for DISMISSED, since I don't see it as Berserker-relevant. -- Ole Andersen (Dan Waldron concurring)

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

The sentence "This causes them to lose 50 points" in Rule 357/1 refers to several persons.

Because it is plural.

"Them" appears to refer to the Provocateur in R357/1, because 1) based on the rest of the rule's text, it appears logical for the Provocateur to be the recipient of any determental effects mentioned, and 2) "them" can (or so I've been told) assume the place of singular gendered pronouns.

Although I personally would dispute the correctness of replacing a singular pronoun with a (usually) plural one, it should be noted that R357 became a rule almost two months prior to the introduction of Spivak pronouns, and that such a solution is often found acceptable in modern English. Thus, based on the history of the rule and the surrounding context, the "them" in question refers only to the Provocateur.

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

The sentence "This causes them to lose 50 points" in Rule 357/1 refers to several persons.

Your 1): It _could_ point to 'X' instead. We know that 'X' is not necessarily the Provocateur. It could point to any other person mentioned in R357, but that might be less likely - though still possible. Your 2): If 'them' is singular, it is not at all a clear expression of singularity. In fact, since the introduction of Spivak, it is hardly an expression of singularity at all.

This seemed pretty obvious once I considered the word "refers." It is clear based on game tradition and the plain intention of the public lynching rule that in that instance, "them" refers to the Provocateur. When I use the phrase "get something off the net" the word "net" refers to the world wide web, even though many standard dictionaries probably won't even give that as one of the meanings of "net." In this case, "them" is a commonly-used and generally-understood synonym for "he or she," and considering that together with the very plain intent of the phrase, "them" does indeed refer to the Provocateur only. -- Matt Kuhns

Again, see: http://robotics.caltech.edu/~mason/they.html
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh/austheir.html
-- Tom Mueller

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

Since Rule 002/1 conflicts with Rule 357/1, Rule 357/1 shall be entirely void.

002 says that I shall be identified by my names (plural). 357 says one name is enough. But 110 says that 002 rulez. It in fact says that 357 "shall be entirely void".

Rule 002/1 states that a Player shall be identified by his of her real name. There is no conflict at all with anything in 357. Provocateur, X, Crowd Shamer, and Mob are merely titles for a position (or office) where the position is defined in rule 357. I find no conflict between referring to a Player by their name, and referring to them by thier position title.

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

The 'where X refers unambiguously to one player' in Rule 357/1 is to be understood within the context of Rule 002/1, which says 'A Player shall be identified by his or her corresponding real human fore- and surnames'.

It seems clear that though players are to be identified by eir real names, there may be other ways to refer unambigiously to players. Until it is demonstrated that there aren't, the "is to be" in the statement to be judged has not been shown.

Ruling: TRUE

Statement:

Andrew Proescholdt is still the proxy voter for Aaron Woell.

I believe the passage of prop 496 only removed the mechanism for assigning a proxy. It did not make voting by proxy illegal or deassign already assigned proxies.

The provision providing for proxy voting was removed from the rules, but that does not mean proxy voting is prohibited - it now becomes something unregulated by the rules, and as such is permissible. Since Andrew Proescholdt was formerly the proxy voter for Aaron Woell, and nothing has been done to change that, I see no reason why he should not continue to be.

I note that if what Joel wanted to happen was an end to proxy voting, perhaps he should have prohibited it explicitly in the rule revision he made.

Ruling: TRUE

Statement:

Andrew Proescholdt is still the proxy voter for Aaron Woell.

I agree with Josh's comments, there is no provision in the rules now about the term proxy voting. It is undefined in the rules, so everyone can be anyone's "proxy voter." However, since there is no rule concerning this type of voting, we must fall back upon Rule 207, "Each Player has exactly one vote." To make this more clear, Andrew Proescholdt is still the proxy voter, but he cannot use this power because it is not in the rules. So Andrew Proescholdt can vote one and exactly one time, and Aaron Woell can vote one and exactly one time. -- Jeff Schroeder

Andrew Proescholdt is still the proxy voter for Aaron Woell, whatever that means. It seems that we have no definition of a Proxy voter in the ruleset, and nothing special about being a Proxy Voter anywhere in the ruleset. It seems to me pretty clear that a Proxy Voter cannot actually cast Proxy votes, because of rule 207, but this may be the subject of another judgement. -- Dan Waldron

Ruling: DISMISSED

Statement:

The GRAND PRIZE cannot vote during a rounnd if it cannot be dermined immediately after a Player votes whether or not the GRAND PRIZE votes with em.

Beserker Nomic does not have anything called a 'rounnd' (two n's), hence this request for judgement does not address a rule-related matter.

Ruling: TRUE

Statement:

The GRAND PRIZE cannot vote during a particular turn if it cannot be dermined immediately after a Player votes whether or not the GRAND PRIZE votes with em.

It cannot be dermined.

Ruling: DISMISSED

Statement:

The GRAND PRIZE cannot vote during a particular turn if it cannot be dermined immediately after a Player votes whether or not the GRAND PRIZE votes with em.

Because of Rule 116/0, I appeal this Judgement.

Nothing in the Rules touches upon dermination, so it permitted and unregulated.

I dismiss this RFJ. Returning a judgment on it the first time was simply clever fun, but taking it any further than that is pretty pointless. -- Matt Kunns

Since this judgement was intended originally as a legitimate request, but suffered from a misspelling, it seems like we need some sort of mechanism for removing, retracting, or altering a request for judgement. Until something like that happens, judges are required to rule on every RFJ, whether it is frivolous or not. -- Mary Tupper

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

The GRAND PRIZE cannot vote during a particular turn if it cannot be determined immediately after a Player votes whether or not the GRAND PRIZE votes with em.

As per R466/1, "The GRAND PRIZE's votes are cast immediately after the Player or Players turning in the most UPCs cast their ballot(s)." I contend that this clause relies on information that is available during voting only in two cases: 1) no one turns in UPCs, and 2) when the GRAND PRIZE is guaranteed to vote with a certain Player. 2 could only come about for Player X if the following conditions are met:

1. No Players turn in UPCs before X votes.
2. X turns in more UPCs than are possessed by any Player who has not yet voted.

Unless these two conditions are met, the GRAND PRIZE's votes cannot be "cast immediately after the Player or Players turning in the most UPCs cast their ballot(s)." Thus, in all cases save the two described here, the rule's provisions cannot be executed.

As the grand prize rule is worded, it cannot be determined immediately after any player who turns in UPCS, until the last voter, whether or not the grand prize voted with him or her.

Were it necessary to determine whether the grand prize votes with a player immediately after he or she votes, the rule would basically negate itself. Since that rule has been used effectively, the interpretation of it up for judgment is therefore not valid.

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

The GRAND PRIZE cannot vote during a particular turn if it cannot be determined immediately after a Player votes whether or not the GRAND PRIZE votes with em.

What is meant by "the rule has been used effectively" and that somehow establishing a fixed interpretation of it is unclear at best.

The above argument seems to support the statement being true:

The rule requires that the GP vote immediately after votes are cast by the Player with whom it votes. Kunns conceeds that "it cannot be determined immediately after any player who turns in UPCS, until the last voter, whether or not the grand prize voted with him or her." These two things together point to a ruling of TRUE rather than FALSE.

While Rules may not be enacted retroactively, we have no rule saying votes cannot be cast retroactively. I interpret the line "The GRAND PRIZE's votes are cast immediately after the Player or Players turning in the most UPCs cast their ballot(s)." in Rule 466 to mean that after everyone has turned in UPCs and voted, the ballot of the GRAND PRIZE is inserted after the ballot of the ballot of the person who turned in the most UPCs. -- Ed Proescholdt

Joel believes otherwise re retroactive casting of votes but I will throw caution to the wind and rule FALSE along with Mr. Proescholdt. -- Josh Kortbein

As the rule requires the GRAND PRIZE to vote immediately after a Player votes, then the validity of the GRAND PRIZE's depends on how votes are counted. If votes are counted as they are received by the administrator, then the disposition of the GRAND PRIZE's votes cannot be determined with certainty. However, if votes are all counted simultaneously, then the GRAND PRIZE will be determined immediately after the voting. In such case, it can be easily determined how the GRAND PRIZE will vote. -- Mary Tupper

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

The GRAND PRIZE cannot vote during a particular turn if it cannot be determined immediately after a Player votes whether or not the GRAND PRIZE votes with em.

By way of further explanation of my position: as mentioned previously, if the implementation of GP voting requires retroactive actions as Ed and Josh hold, then the GP rule requires the impossible -- the end result being the impossibility of its full execution.

There is nothing stopping the Administrator from using a method like:

1. First UPC-returning player's vote come in
2. GP votes the same as the first UPC-returning player
3. Second UPC-returning player's vote comes in
4. If second UPC-returning player turned in most UPCs, GP withdraws its vote and votes the same as the second UPC-returning voter
....

and so on. -- Ole Andersen

Case 86 deals with a number of subtle matters that have a profound effect on Berserker Nomic -- namely, the concepts of determinability, decidability, and whether a game can exist beyond its players.

The predicate of the Statement seems obviously true -- except for a few trivial cases, it cannot be determined immediately after a Player votes whether or not the GRAND PRIZE votes with em. The real heart of the matter is what effect that has on the GRAND PRIZE, on voting, and on the game as a whole.

Judgement 6, initiated by the same player who called for judgement on this Statement, upheld the idea that a player could be added to the game without eir consent. I further hold that a player could be added to the game without even eir knowledge -- although exactly what a player knows and does not know is itself difficult to determine. (Although it is currently impossible to add a player without eir consent, the underlying logic and game customs still hold.)

From that point it is not too far to imagine a game in which NONE of the players are aware that they are playing. They play in complete ignorance of the existence of the rules, the scores, and the existence of the game itself.

My point in following this line of thought is to impress upon the reader the idea that the existence of Nomic entities does not depend on being known by any other Nomic entity. Indeed, there may be a class of Nomic entities that are defined by being implicitly unknowable.

It is my assertion that the GRAND PRIZE *does*, in fact, vote immediately after the winning voter. However, it is impossible for any of the Players to determine how the GRAND PRIZE voted until the Voting Period ends. The GRAND PRIZE has voted in a fashion which is unknowable for a certain period of time.

This is by no means unusual -- it is impossible for all non-Administrator Players to determine how any other Player voted until the Voting Period ends, for example. The mere fact that it cannot be immediately determined by the Players whether the GRAND PRIZE has voted, and how, has no effect on the game -- indeed, it is precisely because it has no effect that it cannot be determined. Fortunately, the GRAND PRIZE's vote is determinable by the end of the Voting Period -- although even this isn't strictly necessary.

This could have problematic effects in conjunction with R307/3. We shall have to cross that bridge when we come to it, or avoid it with a bit of foresight.

Therefore, I must return the Judgement of FALSE. The GRAND PRIZE can vote in a particular turn even if it cannot be determined immediately after a Player votes whether or not the GRAND PRIZE voted with em. -- Roger Carbol

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

Non-Players can lose points.

R399 states "Property is any game-defined object that is both ownable and tradable. Only Players and the game may possess property."

Because one may own points (At last count I have 68 points that are exclusively mine and no one else's; I must conclude I own them) and one may trade points (as players have proven by doing so) points are property. Therefore only players may posess points.

From this, common sense tells us that because one cannot lose what one does not have, non-players, being unable to posess points, cannot lose them.

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

Non-Players can lose points.

While a reading of rule 116 may give a result of "TRUE," I believe such a reading to be misguided. As I have already stated on this matter, I believe it is best to _not_ ascribe properties to non-entities. The statement could be read as referring to game entities which are not players, but it seems clear that it refers to the hypothetical Ole which may or may not have been burned by the long-time-past mob. As such, game tradition guides me to avoid ascribing a score, and thus points, to said hypothetical player. Those who do not have points cannot lose them. QED. -- Josh Kortbein

Points are never defined explicitly. The first judge ruled that the definition of property as ownable and tradable was not simply a word that made it easy to give these qualities to a rule defined object, but worked backwards as well.

This seems not unreasonable. Moreover, it is a rules-based conclusion, which is nice to see in the flurry of foundationless assertions in recent scam debates.

I can find no references which would permit or deny the ability to trade points so I think R116 would indicate its possibility. Seeing no other way of resolving tradability I go to spirit of the game etc: I seem to remember that points have been traded. They are tradable.

The way points work with respect to ownership (associated with one person who exerts almost exclusive influence on them) is very similar to the tradability question: Not rule specified but operating that way so far.

So points are property.

Property may only be owned by players. It is therefore aburd that non-players could gain or lose points. -- Tom Mueller

Nowhere is it stated that only players can have points. The points of non-players seem to have very little affect on the game, but there is no reason to believe that they cannot posess points, not that it makes much difference. I would also argue with the statement "Those that do not have points cannot lose them", by pointing out that Points (and score) seem to be tracked as a single number, rather than as a collection of a large number of individual points, and that it is quite possible for a Player to have zero or fewer points. Therefore I have two arguments that point to a TRUE verdict:

Non-Players can have points, and are therefore subject to losing or gaining points. Of course, the treatment of points for non-players probably differs in many areas from the treatment of points for players. I won't get into this here. However, if non-players have points, I see no reason why this point total cannot be adjusted by Berserker Nomic (not that the number would make much difference anyway).

Even if Non-Players cannot have points, there is no requirement to have points before points are gained or lost. Therefore, Entities without points are still able to lose points, and such a point loss should still be recorded. Of course, after they lose points they would still not have points and so it wouldn't make much difference either.

I don't see what difference it could make to the game, whether non-players can lose points or not, seeing as how entities outside of Berserker are not bound by the Rules. If they do lose points, it should be recorded in the event log as such and we should all carry on with our lives.

If it hadn't come up so many times recently, this really should be given a DISMISSED ruling. I will give it TRUE, just to get it over with. -- Dan Waldron (dissenting, TRUE)

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

Players in Limbo cannot lose points.

We just heartlessly burnt Tom Mueller at the stake. He's not even around to defend himself, as he's in Limbo. That hardly seems fair.

Rule 319/2 clearly states "When a player is in Limbo, e is neither able nor required to perform any Berserker Nomic-related actions except..." and the exceptions do not include losing points.

To lose something is an action. Losing one's car keys, losing points, losing score, losing one's mind, losing one's virginity...all these things point to the conclusion that "to lose" is an action.

Rule 357/2 states that once a person is burnt at the stake, "This causes the Victim to lose 50 points." It is my belief that this rule requires the Victim to "perform a Berserker Nomic-related action," and thus doesn't happen due to Rule 319/2.

R319/2 prohibits any actions other than leaving Limbo or forfeit on the part of players in Limbo, that much is clear. Whether losing points falls under this prohibition is a question which bears some examination.

The Complainant cites numerous instances ("losing one's car keys, losing points, losing score, losing one's mind, losing one's virginity") in which e contends not only that losing is an action, but implicitly (in order for his claims to be true) that it is an action taken by the loser. While it may be granted that losing one's keys or virginity is likely to be an action on the part of the loser, it is by no means necessary, even in these cases (e.g. in theft, rape), nor is it clear that the other cases can ever be actions on the part of the loser. If "losing one's mind" is understood to be the onset of insanity, it can hardly be an action on one's part, at least insofar as one does not chose lunacy. In the context of our game, it seems strange for one to lose one's score, since barring a rule change, a player always has a score. So it appears that "to lose" is by no means always an action, nor are the Complainant's examples always so.

Finally, our focus shifts to whether "to lose points" is an action. It should be noted that all fines imposed are paid automatically -- i.e. the points are _taken_ from the offender rather than _given_ by em. R357/2 deals with a forcible action of which Tom Mueller was the unfortunate victim. In that rule, the Victim is consistently referred to in the passive voice -- i.e. as the recipient of an action rather than the agent. To say that "Tom is burning" is not to say that the action Tom takes is "to burn." Likewise, it seems in keeping with the lynching motif that one need not act to lose points as a result of it -- if anything, a mob attempting to burn someone at the stake would be intent on preventing em from acting. If losing points is to be considered an action, then it seems that being burnt would likewise be an action. It is not, thus losing points also is not.

Ruling: TRUE

Statement:

A Player can not give points to another Player.

By 310/1, attributes can not be altered except in accordance with the rules. A statement in the mailing list is not a rule, therefore points can not be altered in that manner. The only way points could be transferred from one Player to another Player, is by proposing a rule authorizing such a transfer and having it approved by the voters. Thus a Player cannot 'give' points, but a rule can allow the transfer.

It should be noted that there is a difference in between transferring points a Player already possess, and giving away points that don't exist yet or are not in the Players possession.

Ruling: TRUE

Statement:

A Player can not give points to another Player.

This is hazy, at best.

This is a relatively easy one. Rule 327 defines score as an attribute, and Rule 310 completely prohibits any alteration of attributes unless by means specifically spelled out in the rules (whoever crafted that one wasn't playing around). Ergo, since giving points to another player would change one's score, and within the current ruleset that is not a recognized means of changing one's score, it doesn't happen.

Regarding the association of score and points as a possible loophole, In "Nomic: appeal of 1 J89" dated Mon, 07 Jun 1999, Uckelman makes a convincing argument for the inseparability of score from points. I should add to that argument that, if nothing else, game custom/tradition suggests that points and score are not independent. -- Matt Kuhns

Ruling: TRUE

Statement:

A Player (the Donor) can give a positive number of points to another Player, if and only if the Donor, before the gift, has at least as many points as e gives away.

score is quite clearly defined in 327/4 as a player attribute. 310/1 tells us that player attributes cannot be changed except in accordance with the rules. However, nowhere is score linked to points anywhere in the rules. Therefore, while our score may not be modified, Points may be adjusted as we Please.

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

A Player (the Donor) can give a positive number of points to another Player, if and only if the Donor, before the gift, has at least as many points as e gives away.

Mr. Waldron mentions in his analysis that "nowhere is score linked to points anywhere in the rules," and that, as a result, "while our score may not be modified, Points may be adjusted as we Please." In response to this, I would like to offer two lines of reasoning in favor of a FALSE ruling: 1) that score and points are indeed implicitly linked, and 2) that points is a unit of measurement, not a scalar value, and is therefore unchangeable in any such way as to render the statement TRUE.

1. In R347/3, the score is mentioned as having two "components"; several rules that mention points have titles refering to scoring (viz. 204/2, 206/0, 222/3); R202/5 explicitly states when proposal-related scoring takes place. Not a turn goes by that scoring and points are not linked in at least one post to the list. In short, it seems very odd that, if score and points are indeed unrelated, that no one has before objected to such language which clearly suggests the contrary. And if these two are not related, then what is this "score" thing? At the very least, common English usage links score and points in such a way that our existing rules are understandable:

From _Webster's 10th_, "score, n. ... 7a: a number that expresses accomplishment (as in a game or test) or excellence (as in quality) either absolutely in points gained or by comparison to a standard."

and "point, n. ... 15: a unit of measurement as a: (1) a unit of counting in the scoring of a game or contest."

2. Points are a unit of measure, much like meters or seconds. To say that I am going to alter the meters in the width of my room is incoherent -- I may (with some ability in carpentry, of course) alter the _width_ of my room, but not its unit of measurement. Whenever quantity X measurable in Y is increased by Z, we do not say that Y has increased by Z; rather, the correct parlance would be that X has in creased by Z, or that we now have (X+Z) Ys. No change occurs to the unit of measurement.

The crux of this case is Rule 310/1(m) : Attribute Alteration, "Players' attributes may not be altered except in accordance with the rules." Rule 327/4(m) : Player Attributes states "The set of Player Attributes is defined as {score, Wins, Subers, property, Alias}."

Clearly, giving points to a Player will alter their score. Therefore, it is not legal.

Appeals to R116 are tempting, but it seems clear that the matter of Players' Scores are particularly well-regulated by the rules, and thus cannot be arbitrarily manipulated.

One may wish to note that the statement of the Appellant, 'In R347/3, the score is mentioned as having two "components";' is clearly untrue. R347/3 merely describes one of the components of score; the total number of components is left undefined by this particular rule.

I also find his definition of points as units of measurement to be appealing, but untrue as a generalization. The length of a metre *does* change under Relativity. Units of measurement such as the dollar clearly undergo changes within a period of time. Despite this, it does appear that within Berserker Nomic the value of a point is invariant. -- Roger Carbol

I rule FALSE, and concur with the reasoning displayed by the appellant in the argument made with his appeal.

Despite ruling FALSE I note that Mr. Carbol's analysis seems somewhat suspect. C'est la vie. -- Josh Kortbein

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

Ole Andersen has given Matt Kuhns 100000 points.

Ruling: TRUE

Statement:

Poulenc is the winner.

Nowhere in the ruleset are Points linked to Score. Score is defined as a player attribute and therefore cannot changed except as defined in the rules. Points are not defined as a player attribute, but seem to be some mysterious thing which are attached to Players. New players begin the game with zero points, according to #309, but there is no rule that tells us that we cannot manipulate Points as we please, nor is there any rule that tells us that Points are somehow attached to Score. Therefore, Points are freely manipulatable by rule 116/0, and by my statement at the top of this post, I have 500 of them, the number needed to win the game.

By rule 208/2, the winner is the first Player to achieve 500 (positive) points. By his statement on 8 June, 1999, Dan Waldron, aka Poulenc, has achieved 500 points. Although game custom has awarded points for game actions, there is nothing to restrict Dan's actions in claiming 500 points under the current rules.

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

Poulenc is the winner.

I appeal this judgment on the same grounds as my appeal of 1 J90: one cannot gain 472 points without altering one's score; because scoring is regulated, such a gain may only occur if allowed by the rules; and that arbitrary score changes are not allowed by the rules.

Any arguments about points being separate from scores, and thus adjustable, are worthless. There is clearly a strict relationship between scores and points. One's score increases by 1 if and only if one gains a point. If one wants to think of points and scores as separable, then we might conceptualize the "points" a person has as a set of unique point-objects (each new one has to be different, for it to be a set), and a person's score as the cardinality of eir set of point-objects. However, as Mr. Uckelman pointed out, scores may only be changed in accordance with the rules. Thus, posession of additional point-objects, gotten by means not in accordance with the rules, is prohibited, because it causes a direct change in score. -- Josh Kortbein, (with Ole Andersen concurring)

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

Poulenc is the winner.

In the Judgement of 2/29, Josh Kortbein wrote "Any arguments about points being separate from scores, and thus adjustable, are worthless. There is clearly a strict relationship between scores and points." This is false. In the Rules, Points and Score are not stated to be the same thing, they are not stated to be equal, they are not in any way linked. There is no strict relationship between score and points. The only place in which they are linked is in the custom of this game to assume that they are one and the same. I believe that this custom is in direct conflict with the rules.

The rules refer to Points and Score quite differently. Most of the rules that have to do with "scoring" in fact, change the number of Points posessed by a Player. The only rule that changes the Score is rule 347/3, Score and Subers. In this rule it states that "There is a component of each player's score dependent upon the number of Subers he/she has accumulated." No other rule creates any other component of a player's score, or adjusts it in any way. I suggest the interpretation that this is the only component of a player's score, and that Score and Points are entirely seperate, and that because of an oversight, Points are not protected from meddling players like me.

Since 'score', in the view of some, is not defined in the context of the game, we should look at the general definition of 'score'. And this definition is quite simple: A score is a number of points. Nobody has mentioned any other defintion of 'score', so the general definition is what we have.

If you change the number of points you have, you change your score, and vice versa.

Poulenc tried to adjust his score, but he can not do that, so it did not succeed. He does not have 500 points.

I therefore find the Statement 'Poulenc is the winner' to be FALSE. -- Ole Andersen

Poulenc claims that score and points are not the same thing. This is trash.

I direct you to R228:

"All decisions by all Judges must be made in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then Judges shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards."

No game custom supports Poulenc. -- Tom Mueller

Ruling: TRUE

Statement:

Nomics may not be added as players to Berserker Nomic, because nomics are not single players.

I think this is clear in the case of a multi-player nomic. Even one which offers up a single human representative is not, in reality, one player. The "one human" clause could be considered simply a way to stop vote-mongering, but it also serves a more subtle purpose: it limits the resources available to the player receiving representation. A "player" backed up by a group of people has an unfair advantage in our game.

Now, for single-player nomics, the distinction becomes blurrier. I believe it to hold though, if only for the reason that Nomics are in fact NOT simply humans. They are bodies of rules, the bounds of which are few - but bodies of rules nonetheless. Those rules may have (human) players associated with them, but they may not. I don't think we should set a precedent of allowing this kind of tomfoolery. If we want other nomics to have representation in our game we should try to mimic what some inter-nomic nomics have done, not just allow whatever the hell Poulenc is trying to pull because it sounds halfway normal.

R2/2 requires that a player has human fore- and surnames. Nomics do not have human fore- and surnames. A given Nomic might, perhaps, have human fore- and surnames, but Nomics, generally speaking, do not.

Ruling: TRUE

Statement:

Nomics may not be added as players to Berserker Nomic, because nomics are not single players.

In rule 2/2, there is no requirement for real human fore- and surnames, they are in the second paragraph of that rule and merely provide a means of identification. Required attributes are mentioned in the first paragraph, they include, that the representative must be one, real, must be living, and must be human, and must be unique. The RFJ was requesting judgement on the issue of the one-ness of Nomics, and the judgement only answered the question of names.

In response to Kuhns' contention that the above should be dismissed because 1) it is an if-then construct, 2) the antecedent and consequent are not sufficiently related, I respond:

1) The statement isn't a simple material implication; rather, it indicates a causal relationship, so there should be no vacuous true values. (I think?)

2) As per R228/1, "DISMISSED indicates that a Statement cannot be evaluated as to its veracity, or does not address a rules-related matter." Neither of these obtain in this case. There are no prima facie obstacles to determining the veracity of the statement, nor does it appear to be unrelated to the rules.

Therefore, the statement demands a TRUE or FALSE response.

The analysis for a TRUE response is quoted from my earlier judgment on the matter:

As per R2/2, "A Player is a game entity represented by one and only one real, living, human being who consents to said representation and is not already represented in the game as another Player."

This statement hinges on whether being a "single player" is a precondition for entry into the game. Admitting a nomic as a Player would entail admitting its rules AND customs AND players _as a single Player_. However, since Players may only be consenting humans, and "consenting human" is in no way equivalent to "rules, customs, and players", I must rule TRUE.

-- Joel Uckelman, Matt Kuhns (concurring)

Ruling: closed without resolution by order of R221/2

Statement:

Gabe Drummond-Cole is one Player, not three.

Since the various Drummond-Coles are represented by the same real human being, I doubt that they are each represented by _one_ human being. They are represented by _a fraction of one_ each.

This is obviously against R2/1, since they are not represented by one each.

Ruling: closed without resolution by order of R221/2

Statement:

Gabe Drummond-Cole was admitted as a player a single time only, and thus cannot presently be three players.

That Mr. Drummond-Cole was admitted as a player three times rests on his assumption that he was sponsored by Mr. Mueller three times -- which I hold to be false.

At 03:06:14 CDT 14 June 1999 Mr. Mueller sent his first message, containing the line "Since he's clearly such prime nomic player material I propose that he be added as a player." and no other line that could be construed as such a proposal.

At 03:06:16 CDT 14 June 1999 Mr. Mueller sent a slightly different message, the sole alteration being the addition of "I propose that Gabe Drummond-Cole be added to Berserker Nomic as a player." as the first line.

At 03:08:04 CDT 14 June 1999 Mr. Mueller sent a message containing the text "Whoops, sorry for the double send there." and with the same subject as his previous two messages. Presumably, this referred to his then most recent message (of 03:06:16, see above).

Clearly, Mr. Mueller did not intend for the second message to be sent at all. As such, it should be disregarded, leaving the single proposal in his first message as the only legally binding one, and thereby limiting Mr. Drummond-Cole to a single player.

Ruling: closed without resolution by order of R221/2

Statement:

Joel Uckelman is the only Player left in the game.

Ruling: TRUE

Statement:

Nomics may not be players in Berserker Nomic.

According to the most plausible justification for adding nomics as players I have heard from Mr. Waldron, nomics would be represented by single humans, who do not already represent players in our game.

However, that is not the notion expressed in Mr. Waldron's statement. His statement asks whether or not nomics themselves may be players. Not whether or not their representatives may be players. In general, I take a "nomic" to be a collection of players, rules, and structures identified by the rules, which derives in some way from Peter Suber's original nomic concept. In this sense, then, a nomic cannot be a player, as a nomic is not a single human being.

If Mr. Waldron wishes to argue that a nomic might have its interests represented in our nomic in some more complicated way, he should submit a more precise statement for judgment.

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

Santa Claus is Nomic-related [sic]

With the exception of some passing reference in a the shrubber/paver debate, there has been no mention of Santa Claus up to this point, we have no definition of Santa Claus, e seems to be something that exists outside of this game, which we have no control over, made no reference to, etc. Therefore Santa Claus is not Nomic-Related. This is not to say that Santa Claus can never be Nomic Related, because if we somehow manage to incorporate Santa Claus in the game, then e will become Nomic Related. Therefore I return the ruling FALSE. At this point in time, Santa Claus is not Nomic Related

Ruling: DISMISSED

Statement:

The statement "Unless anyone has any further thoughts on the SC proposal, I'll finally let it come to a vote tomorrow." did not activate Proposal 538.

My comment, while it was unambiguously about P538, seems only to refer to a future event, rather than cause an action in the present. R223/0 is silent on this matter, but we have traditionally held that things not done explicitly are not done at all.

Since the truth of the first part of the quoted statement cannot be established, there is no way to determine the overall truth of the quoted statement. However, the question for judgment does not depend on the truth of the quoted statement. It depends solely on the truth of the final portion 'did not activate Proposal 538.' Since the only way the question for judgment can be false is if the last portion is false. That is, if Proposal 538 was activated. Since false actions cannot be taken in the game, it follows that for the judicial statement to be true, Proposal 538 was not activated. However, it has not been determined that Proposal 538 was activated legally or not, so the overall truth of the question for judgment can not be determined.

Ruling:

Statement:

The statement "Unless anyone has any further thoughts on the SC proposal, I'll finally let it come to a vote tomorrow." did not activate Proposal 538.

I thought I was clearly asking for a determination of any causal link between the quoted material and the possible activation of P538. A statement of the form "X caused Y" could be resolved in several ways:

1. If Y is known to be false, the statement would be false. I contend that since Y is at issue, this is not the case.

2. Similarly, if X is known to be false, the statement would be false (or trivially true?), but this is likewise not the case, as I clearly did send the quoted material to the list.

3. If X and Y are true, then the alleged causal links may be examined. As Judge Tupper (rightly) indicated, we cannot know anything a fortiori about Y, as no independent arguments for its status have been given.

4. If X is true, then whether X has causal powers sufficient (possibly in concert with other things at the time) to bring about Y. This appears to be the only line of inquiry available with regard to the present statement.

Ruling:

Statement:

A Limbo Check takes place when the Administrator executes the check.

Who ever said that the limbo check takes place when it is called for? That is the way we have been playing, but I think it is incorrect. According to the rule, "The Administrator executes a Limbo Check for a player by determining if that Player has take any game related action [[e.g. voting, proposing, commenting]] over the period of fifteen day immediately prior to the Limbo Check. If a player has not taken any game related action within fifteen days prior to the Limbo Check, that Player has failed the Limbo Check."

This clearly says that the Administrator executes the Limbo check, and the check monitors events that take place during the 15 days prior to the execution.

I do not think this is a problem, just a clarification. Actually, I would prefer if things happen when they are executed rather than in the past (in cases like this, anyway) if for no other reason than to avoid situations like this.