Subject: Statement to the Court

From: "Doctroid " <hrholmes@m...>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 13:58:50 -0000

>From the offices of Esquiroid, Attorney at Law:

Recently my client, Doctroid, acted as Assessor to impose the taxes
and distribute the Social Security mandated under Rule 15. He did so
in good faith and at no personal gain whatsoever, having chosen the
status of Rebel which by Rule 29 is forbidden the Assessor's Fee.

In response, Gallivanting Tripper <s3036845@s...> wrote:
> In his recent Tax Assessment, Doctroid doled out 29 of the State's
valuable
> points to the Welfare cheats TopHeavy and Xylen. I do not argue
those
> Players' current scores, but I maintain that those Points should not
have
> been transferred from the State, but granted ex vacuo, as per points
gained
> and lost through proposals and admin.

It strikes me as shameful to ask that my client be punished for the
vagueness of the wording of a rule. Examination of Rule 15 reveals
that the provisions for levying of Taxes and doling of Social Security
are worded in an exactly parallel manner. The strong implication is
that the source of Social Security and the sink of Taxes are one and
the same, viz., the State's coffers. Had the symmetry been intended
to be broken, a well-written rule would have stipulated such a
breaking.

As a separate point, not directly relevant to the present case, I
caution against the assumption that Points are an infinitely renewable
resource, created ab vacuo. The nature of Points is a mystery to
present-day science: What are they made of? How are they produced? 
What entity makes them available, and why does that Entity not make
them available to bestow on new Players? Can they be synthesized? 
Much ongoing research is being devoted to these questions, and perhaps
we shall have answers in the not too distant future -- answers that
could have a profound effect on our Society.

> PS, Oloros is also listed as having 0 Points where he should have
-10. 

Again, the vague wording of the rules is responsible. Rule 29 can be
taken to mean "The Taxes taken from the CEO are equal to what they
would have been had the CEO had 10 more points at the time of
assessment", *or* "The Taxes taken from the CEO are enough to leave
him with as many points as he would have had if he had had 10 more
points at the time of assessment". The second interpretation is the
one that was followed.

In both cases my client interpreted the Rules in an entirely
reasonable manner. I am willing to stipulate, however, that more
reasonable interpretations exist (especially in regard to the taxation
of the CEO). Therefore, I reluctantly enter a guilty plea on my
client's behalf.

---

From: Xylen <mctupper@h...>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:20:21 -0600

> points at the time of assessment". The second interpretation is the

I believe the intention of this Rule is found in your first
interpation. That is, the CEO is assumed to have a greater overall worth
than that represented by Points. Thus, the CEO is taxed as if they had
10 Points more than the balance sheet indicates. Similarily, the Pauper
is allowed a deduction to their worth prior to the assessement of
taxes. 

After considering Rule 29 a bit longer, I noticed a small problem. The
Pauper has the lowest wealth, and the Rebel has zero wealth. Currently,
that means that the Pauper is a Rebel named Doctroid. As the Pauper,
Doctroid is subject to taxation effects, but by the status of Rebel, 
Doctroid is not affected by taxation. As the definition and
consequences of Rebelness is _after_ the definition and consequences of
Rebel, it appears that in the case where a single player is both Pauper
and Rebel, they shall be considered only as a Rebel.

Xylen,
Pariah

---

From: "Doctroid " <hrholmes@m...>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 16:58:53 -0000

> and Rebel, they shall be considered only as a Rebel.

Right, I was thinking of raising that question too, but forgot to. A
Rebel *must* be a Pauper, in fact (unless one can have negative coins,
and I don't think one can -- there's also the unresolved question of
what to do if there are two or more Players with zero Wealth; the
Rules imply there can be only one Pauper (and one CEO)). So I don't
think any interpretation in which Paupership overrides Rebelship makes
sense.

Anyway, as I see it, the two don't conflict. Paupers are considered
to have 10 points less than they do for tax purposes, but they are not
specially required to pay tax or collect SS any more than any other
player is -- so Rebel status doesn't conflict with Pauper status any
more than it would with Middle Class or CEO status (if such a thing
were possible). In other words, I was considered to have 10 fewer
points because I'm the Pauper -- points which didn't matter because
I'm a Rebel.

Anyway, as far as taxation/Social Security is concerned, it's moot in
this case, I think -- a Pauper with 10<=n<=20 points would neither pay
tax nor get Social Security. A non-Rebel Pauper who acts as Assessor
would get the 5 point fee a Rebel is prohibited from collecting,
though. 

Rule 11 specifies what happens when two rules conflict, but if there's
a conflict here (and I don't think there is) I think it's between a
rule and itself, for which there's no specified remedy.

- D