CALL FOR JUDGEMENT ARCHIVE (101-115)

Call For Judgement 101- Tue Jan 23 9:30pm 1996
Subject: Multi-Part Proposals
Initiator: Wayne Sheppard
Judge: David Chapman
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Proposals 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 310 are all in violation of Rule 103. These proposals shall be removed from consideration and all votes cast on these proposals shall be ignored.

Rule 103 states that "A rule change must be one of the following". The illegal proposals all contain multiple rule changes. Rule 103 would have to be modified to say "..must be one or more of the..." to allow these types of proposals.

Rule 107 states "..give each proposed rule change an ordinal number.." Again, the illegal proposals all contain multiple rule changes.

While Mitchell Harding has been very aggressive and creative in proposing rule changes, these proposals are not admissible under the current rules. I also would like to state that the Speaker has acted correctly in this situation by posting the proposals. The Speaker should not have to judge the validity of any proposals.

Comments:
Decision of the above proposals will be put on hold until this matter is decided. Players must still enter their votes by the end of the voting period however.

After careful review of the existing rules and a review of the disputed proposals, I find the argument to be TRUE and thus the aforementioned proposals are deemed invalid.

Reasoning:
The CFJ argued that ALL proposals (301, 302, 303, 307, 308, and 310) were invalid. I examined each of these proposals in turn to examine the alleged invalidity by rules 103 and 107. This was found to be true in EACH case, hence my judgement.

Comments:
Proposals 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, and 310 are hereby deemed invalid.

Call For Judgement 102- Wed Jan 24 12:30pm 1996
Subject: Proposal 305
Initiator: Mitchell Harding
Judge: Wayne Sheppard
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

I call a judgement on Proposal 305. It proposes to amend an immutable rule, which is not a legal proposal according to Rule 103.

If the judge's decision is TRUE than this proposal will be deamed invalid.

On the CFJ 102, I judge True.

Comments:
Proposal 305 is hereby deemed invalid.

Call For Judgement 103- Sat Jan 27 1:30am 1996
Initiator: David Chapman
Judge: Austin Appleby
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Proposal 309 is in violation of Rule 103. This proposal shall be removed from consideration and all votes cast on this proposal shall be ignored.

Rule 103 states that "A rule change must be one of the following". The illegal proposals all contain multiple rule changes. Rule 103 would have to be modified to say "..must be one or more of the..." to allow these types of proposals.

Rule 107 states "..give each proposed rule change an ordinal number.." Again, the illegal proposal contains multiple rule changes.

I also refer you to CFJ 101, which ruled proposals 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, and 310 invalid.

I accept the position of judge for CFJ 103, and after thoroughly considering the current ruleset, I judge "True", thereby deeming proposal 309 invalid.

Call For Judgement 104- Tue Jan 30 9:00am 1996
Proposal 341
Initiator: David Chapman
Judge: Mitchell Harding
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

I hereby request a Call For Judgement against proposal 341 regarding it's validity.

Proposal 341 creates a rule that includes a reference to a non-existent rule (actually a proposal that was summarily shot down). Proposal 341 should be removed from consideration and all votes cast ignored.

The CFJ claims that a proposal cannot make reference to a non-existent rule. In order to decide whether or not this was true, I first checked the restrictions on a proposal (aka rule change):

103. What Is A Rule Change?
A rule change must be one of the following: (1) the enactment repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule, or vice versa.

Proposal 341 fits into the 1st category, as it is amending a mutable rule. Therefore it passed the criteria of Rule 103. I also call attention to Rule 115, which states (in essence) that everything is allowed that is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by a rule. It lists the exception that (paraphrased) "No rule changes are permitted unless the current rules concerning rule changes allow it." In this case, Rule 103, concerning rule changes, allows Proposal 341 to be valid. Therefore Proposal 341 is valid. The rule might not make a lot of sense with the reference to a non-existent rule, but this does not make the proposal invalid.

After careful consideration of what is permitted to be passed as a rule, I vote false on CFJ 104. I refer you to Rules 103 and 115 for my reasoning.

Call For Judgement 105- Tue Jan 30 11:45am 1996
Proposal Validity
Initiator: Paul Swan
Judge: Wayne Sheppard (declined to judge)
New Judge: Eric Sebesta (selected Jan 31 1996)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

I would like a judgement to be made on the validity of proposals 365, 366, 369, 370, 372, 373, and 375.

All of these proposals rely on others passing first, and are presently meaningless. 365, 369, and 372 all propose changes to rules that are presently immutable, and 366, 370, 373, and 375 propose changing rules that have not been passed yet into immutable rules.

If the judgement is true, these proposals will be deemed INVALID.

By Rule 105, a rule change (i.e. proposal) may be one of the following: 1: Enactment, repeal or amendment of a MUTABLE rule. 2: Enactment, repeal or amendment of a amendment. 3: Transmutation of a IMMUTABLE rule into a MUTABLE, or vice versa.

Proposals 365, 369, and 372 propose to change immutable rules, and option not listed in rule 105. Proposals 366, 370, 373, 375 propose to change immutable rules into immutable rules (which they are already). Again, this is NOT an allowed proposal by rule 105.

The controversy comes down to timing. A proposal must be a valid WHEN IT IS PROPOSED. While all these proposals COULD pass and carry out their purpose if passed in the correct order, they are not valid as of now.

Therefore, I judge proposals 365, 366, 369, 370, 372, 373, and 375 INVALID.

Call For Judgement 106- Thu Feb 1 11:15am 1996
Proposal 375
Initiator: Jeff Zeitlin
Judge: Austin Appleby
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

"Proposal 375 is in violation of Rule 103 (Immutable). Proposal 375 shall be removed from consideration and all votes cast on this proposal shall be ignored."

Rationale:

Proposal 375 refers to "the Rule created by the previous Proposal". Without the adoption of Proposal 374, there is no such rule. Rule 103 requires in effect that any proposal to change or amend a _rule_ shall apply to _rules_, not to _proposals_, and certainly not to nonexistent entities. Inasmuch as there is currently no rule meeting the description of the rule to which Proposal 375 refers, there is no way that Proposal 375 can modify such a rule.

There is no provision made as to what the content of a proposal must be. I could make a proposal stating "All ducks are godlike" and, if the proposal passed, nothing would happen because "All ducks are godlike" doesn't fit the requirements for making a rule change. Since Proposal 375 would be enacted after proposal 374, it would thus (at the time of its inception) be acting upon an existing rule, it is therefore valid.

I judge NEGATIVE.

Call For Judgement 107- Thu Feb 1 11:15am 1996
Proposal 366
Initiator: Jeff Zeitlin
Judge: David Chapman
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

"Proposal 366 is in violation of Rule 103 (Immutable). Proposal 366 shall be removed from consideration and all votes cast on this proposal shall be ignored."

Rationale:

Proposal 366 refers to "the Rule formerly known as Rule 105". Without the adoption of Proposal 364, there is no such rule. Rule 103 requires in effect that any proposal to change or amend a _rule_ shall apply to _rules_, not to _proposals_, and certainly not to nonexistent entities. Inasmuch as there is currently no rule meeting the description of the rule to which Proposal 366 refers, there is no way that Proposal 366 can modify such a rule.

The validity of this proposal was already an issue for CFJ 105. I agree with the judgement in that case.

My judgement on this matter is TRUE.

Call For Judgement 108- Thu Feb 1 11:15am 1996
Proposal 372
Initiator: Jeff Zeitlin
Judge: Andrew Baumann (dropped out of game)
New Judge: Mitchell Harding(selected Feb 7 1996)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

"Proposal 372 is in violation of Rule 103 (Immutable). Proposal 372 shall be removed from consideration and all votes cast on this proposal shall be ignored."

Rationale:

Proposal 372 refers to "the Rule formerly known as Rule 107". Without the adoption of Proposal 371, there is no such rule. Rule 103 requires in effect that any proposal to change or amend a _rule_ shall apply to _rules_, not to _proposals_, and certainly not to nonexistent entities. Inasmuch as there is currently no rule meeting the description of the rule to which Proposal 372 refers, there is no way that Proposal 372 can modify such a rule.

Rule 103 clearly states that a rule change may either transmute a rule from mutable to immutable (or vice versa), amend a mutable rule, or create a new rule. Proposal 372 is attempting to amend a nonexistent rule, and therefore does not fit one of the above categories.

On CFJ 108 I am forced to judge True, thus making Proposal 372 invalid.

Call For Judgement 109- Thu Feb 1 11:30am 1996
Proposal 373
Initiator: Jeff Zeitlin
Judge: Paul Swan
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

"Proposal 373 is in violation of Rule 103 (Immutable). Proposal 373 shall be removed from consideration and all votes cast on this proposal shall be ignored."

Rationale:

Proposal 373 refers to "the Rule formerly known as Rule 107". Without the adoption of Proposal 371, there is no such rule. Rule 103 requires in effect that any proposal to change or amend a _rule_ shall apply to _rules_, not to _proposals_, and certainly not to nonexistent entities. Inasmuch as there is currently no rule meeting the description of the rule to which Proposal 373 refers, there is no way that Proposal 373 can modify such a rule.

Again, Proposal 373 is attempting to modify a rule that does not yet exist.

Judgement: true

Call For Judgement 110- Thu Feb 1 11:30am 1996
Proposal 369
Initiator: Jeff Zeitlin
Judge: Sean Crystal (declined to Judge)
New Judge: Paul Swan (selected Feb 7 1996)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

"Proposal 369 is in violation of Rule 103 (Immutable). Proposal 369 shall be removed from consideration and all votes cast on this proposal shall be ignored."

Rationale:

Proposal 369 refers to "the Rule formerly known as Rule 106". Without the adoption of Proposal 368, there is no such rule. Rule 103 requires in effect that any proposal to change or amend a _rule_ shall apply to _rules_, not to _proposals_, and certainly not to nonexistent entities. Inasmuch as there is currently no rule meeting the description of the rule to which Proposal 369 refers, there is no way that Proposal 369 can modify such a rule.

Rule 106 can not be amended as it is presently an immutable rule.

True.

Call For Judgement 111- Thu Feb 1 11:30am 1996
Proposal 365
Initiator: Jeff Zeitlin
Judge: Mitchell Harding
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

"Proposal 365 is in violation of Rule 103 (Immutable). Proposal 365 shall be removed from consideration and all votes cast on this proposal shall be ignored."

Rationale:

Proposal 365 refers to "the Rule formerly known as Rule 105". Without the adoption of Proposal 364, there is no such rule. Rule 103 requires in effect that any proposal to change or amend a _rule_ shall apply to _rules_, not to _proposals_, and certainly not to nonexistent entities. Inasmuch as there is currently no rule meeting the description of the rule to which Proposal 365 refers, there is no way that Proposal 365 can modify such a rule.

In order to decide whether or not Proposal 365 was a legal proposal, I consulted Rule 103, concerning the three admissible types of proposals. It is permitted to amend a mutable rule, however in this case the rule to be amended is not yet mutable, and there is no guarantee that it will become so. I judge that this is, in effect, trying to amend a nonexistent rule. Therefore this is not a legal proposal, and must be removed from consideration.

On CFJ 111 I judge True.

Call For Judgement 112- Thu Feb 1 11:30am 1996
Proposal 370
Initiator: Jeff Zeitlin
Judge: Paul Swan
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

"Proposal 370 is in violation of Rule 103 (Immutable). Proposal 370 shall be removed from consideration and all votes cast on this proposal shall be ignored."

Rationale:

Proposal 370 refers to "the Rule formerly known as Rule 106". Without the adoption of Proposal 368, there is no such rule. Rule 103 requires in effect that any proposal to change or amend a _rule_ shall apply to _rules_, not to _proposals_, and certainly not to nonexistent entities. Inasmuch as there is currently no rule meeting the description of the rule to which Proposal 370 refers, there is no way that Proposal 370 can modify such a rule.

This proposal is attempting to modify a rule that does not exist at present.

True.

Call For Judgement 113- Fri Feb 2 6:15pm 1996
Wayne's Claim of Winning
Initiator: Mitchell Harding
Judge: Wes Contreras (failed to respond to CFJ)
New Judge: David Chapman (selected Feb 4 1996)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

I hereby Call For Judgment on the claim by Wayne Sheppard that he has won. I believe that he has illegally gained 85 points, and therefore they should not count towards his score, and he should not win. If judgement is returned True, Wayne Sheppard will not have the 85 points added to his score, and he will not win the game.

Rationale:

Rule 115 reads as follows:

115. Permissibility Of The Unprohibited Whatever is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.

Wayne Sheppard used this rule in order to claim 85 points, claiming that this is in no way prohibited by any of the rules. I contend that this is not the case. Rule 115 states that something must not be "explicitly prohibited...by a rule" OR "regulated by a rule" in order to be permitted. I contend that the gaining and losing of points is regulated by many rules, such as Rule 207 and Rule 208. Also, I contend that winning the game is regulated by Rule 110, Rule 209, and Rule 219. Therefore I point out that both gaining points and winning the game are regulated by rules. Therefore I assert that Wayne Sheppard cannot arbitrarily assign himself 85 points and win the game (at least not if he justifies the action by Rule 115) because Rule 115 does not allow such actions to occur where there exist rules to govern the actions.

This essentially comes down to an interpretation of Rule 115. I claim that the correct interpretation, the one that we all share, is the following: You can do anything you want if the rules have nothing to say on the issue. For example, I could say that I am officially the Big Herring, because the rules are completely silent on this issue. However, I could not declare that instead of using ordinal numbers in base 10, we would be using ordinal numbers in base 3. This is illegal because while the rules do not expressly forbid this specific action, there is a rule concerning the numbering of proposals (Rule 642) and thus I cannot arbitrarily adjust this, even though the said rule does not discuss this issue specifically.

Having reviewed the arguments presented by the initiator and reviewing the relevant rules, I am in agreement with the initiator on this matter.

My judgement on this CFJ is TRUE.

Call For Judgement 114- Thu Feb 15 2:45pm 1996
Rule 396
Initiator: Gumby (aka Neil Griffin)
Judge: Robert Sevin (aka Mitchell Harding)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

"Rule 396 is invalid, since it is a Mutable Rule which contradicts an Immutable Rule (number 109). According to Rule 108, this means that Rule 396 is 'wholly void and without effect'. It should be removed from the list of AckaNomic Rules."

Rule 396 states that the job of handling proposals belongs to the Promoter, while Rule 109 clearly states that this job should be done by the Speaker. Hence the contradiction.

I should note that I don't believe Rule 329 to be similarly in contradiction with Rule 114, since the latter only requires votes to be sent to the Speaker, and not that this be the correct way to register a vote.

Rule 108 states than a mutable rule in contradiction with an immutable rule is wholly void and without effect. I believe that the issue of this CFJ comes down to a single point: Does a rule being void necessarily mean that it is no longer a rule, or does it rather mean that the rule simply does not need to be heeded. I interpret Rule 108 to mean that, in this case, Rule 396 is still a rule, it is just a rule without any effect. Later, if Rule 109 is altered, or Rule 396 become immutable, then it may begin having an effect. For the moment, however, I rule that 396 is a valid rule, and should remain a rule, albeit a rule without any effect.

I judge FALSE on CFJ 114.

Call For Judgement 115- Sun Feb 18 6:30pm 1996
Proposal 417
Initiator: Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)
Judge: Gumby (Neil Griffin)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Proposal 417 proposes to amend Rule 114. Rule 114 was recently made mutable by Proposal 410, and hence Rule 114/0 (Immutable) is now Rule 410/1 (Mutable), in accordance with Rule 107 (concerning the numbering of rules and proposals). Therefore Proposal 417 is invalid, as it proposes to amend a nonexistent rule.

I judge TRUE on both CFJ 115 and CFJ 116 for the reasons given. As a result, Rule 107 should be renumbered appropriately (Rule 114 has already been renumbered). Proposal 417 shall be considered invalid.