CALL FOR JUDGEMENT ARCHIVE (116-130)

Call For Judgement 116- Sun Feb 18 6:30pm 1996
Rule 107/1
Initiator: Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)
Judge: Gumby (Neil Griffin)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Proposal 371 transmuted Rule 107/0 (Immutable) to a mutable rule. Rule 107/0 (Immutable) was in effect when Proposal 371 passed. According to Rule 107/0 the number of a rule is the number of the most recent rule change to it. Therefore when Proposal 371 passed, and transmuted Rule 107/0 (Immutable) to a mutable rule, the new rule number SHOULD have been Rule 371/1 (Mutable) according to the rules. Instead it has been erroneously labeled Rule 107/1 (Mutable). Therefore I claim that this numbering is invalid, and needs to be altered to stay in keeping with the rules.

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.

Call For Judgement 117- Wed Feb 21 2:45pm 1996
Definition of Unanimity
Initiator: Wayne (Wayne Sheppard)
Judge: Bobalugah Rajiboo (Sean Crystal)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

For a vote to be considered unanimous, there can be no ABSTENTIONS unless all votes are ABSTENTIONS.

I hereby vote that this statement is TRUE.

Call For Judgement 118- Fri Feb 23 2:00am 1996
Numbering Proposals
Initiator: Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)
Original Judge: Wayne (Wayne Sheppard)
Original Judgement: FALSE (changed to Undecided by Proposal 444, Mar 5 1996)
2nd Judge: Perfect Tommy (Eric Sebesta) (Quit Ackanomic, Mar 6 1996)
3rd Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (Thierry Joffrain) (Selected Mar 6 1996)
New Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Rule 329 takes precedence over Rule 371. In the case of proposals that are Amendments, Repealings, or Transmutations, Rule 343 will not take effect, and no Immutable rule shall come into being with the text of the proposal. Rule 343 will only apply to proposals that create new rules. Therefore in this specific case, Rule 414 will contain the amended text of Rule 329, and Rule 415 will contain the text of Rule 109, and will be a mutable rule.

Proposals 414 and 415 recently passed unanimously. Therefore, according to Rule 343, they both become immutable rules. Therefore, by Rule 343, there ought to be introduced Rule 414 and Rule 415, both containing the texts of the respective proposals. However, Proposal 414 amends Rule 329, and Proposal 415 transmutes Rule 109 to Mutable. Therefore, according to Rule 371, Rule 414 should contain the amended text of Rule 329, and Rule 415 ought to contain the text of Rule 109, and it ought to be a mutable rule. There is an obvious dilemma.

If this CFJ is judged to be True, the changes described in the above statement will take effect. If this CFJ is judged to be False, the Speaker will await another CFJ which will decide the outcome.

A Proposal is a proposed rule change. A rule change can be (1) enactment repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule, (2) enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment [Why is this in here?] (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule, or vice versa. Several rules (105,106) refer to proposals as rule changes.

Rule 343
Any proposal that is passed unanimously will, upon becoming a Rule, be transmuted to an Immutable Rule.

The Proposals in question were passed unanimously. So if they become a rule, they should be transmuted to an Immutable Rule. The main question is "Is a passed Proposal a Rule?"

After reading thru the rules several times, nowhere can I find a reference that a passed proposal is a "rule". A proposal is a change to a rule. A proposal is a modifier of a rule. Proposals don't become rules. They create, repeal, transmute, or amend rules.

While I am sure the author of 343 wanted a Rule, that a proposal created, to become immutable if the proposal passes, this is not what the Rule says. 343 Clearly states that a Proposal becomes immutable. This currently has no meaning in our current rules.

This CFJ is on the following statement:

"Rule 329 takes precedence over Rule 371. In the case of proposals that are Amendments, Repealings, or Transmutations, Rule 343 will not take effect, and no Immutable rule shall come into being with the text of the proposal. Rule 343 will only apply to proposals that create new rules. Therefore in this specific case, Rule 414 will contain the amended text of Rule 329, and Rule 415 will contain the text of Rule 109, and will be a mutable rule."

Since this CFJ has multiple statements, I must look at each statement to see if it is true. I find that the part "Rule 343 will only apply to proposals that create new rules." to be FALSE. Therefore I find the entire CFJ FALSE.

It is my opinion that CFJ 118 should have been judged to be TRUE, for several reasons.

1) I claim that the phrase "rule change" which appears numerous times in the Rules of Ackanomic means "change to the set of rules". Thus, it includes all kinds of proposals as defined in rule 103.

2) In my opinion, the CFJ hangs on the meaning of the phrase "upon becoming a Rule" in rule 343. If we interpret this to mean "when it becomes a rule", then 343 is inconsistent with 103, since amendments, for example, do not become rules. However, if we interpret it to mean "if it becomes a Rule", then rule 343 will only affect the mutability of new rules, not of amendments etc. From this point of view, it is clear that the spirit of the game requires that CFJ 118 should be judged TRUE.

The entire controversy hangs upon the wording of R343, and both rules have been suspended since then. However, in the mean time we have passed R446, amending R343 to the following:

"This rule does not apply to proposals that amend, repeal, or transmute rules. It only applies to proposals that create new rules. When such a proposal passes unanimously, creating a mutable rule, that new rule automatically becomes an immutable rule, retaining the same rule number it had prior to this transmutation. Any proposal that is voted against unanimously creates a new rule as if it had been voted for unanimously. This rule then becomes an immutable rule, following the procedure described previously."

This rule builds from R343, amended in accordance with the rules. Further, it is also rooted in R101 which lends legitimacy to "game custom". Hence, it is the decision of this judge to accede to CFJ 118, since it puts forward actions and solutions that are in complete accord with R446.

I judge this CFJ to be TRUE.

Call For Judgement 119 - Thu Feb 29 4:30pm 1996
Revising Proposal 441
Initiator: Gumby (Neil Griffin)
Judge: Wayne (Wayne Sheppard)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

In accordance with Rule 421, I would like to revise my proposal number 441 from it's current form:

> I propose that rule 205 be amended from:
>
> "The prescribed voting period on a proposal is seven days, starting
> from the moment that the proposal is distributed by the Speaker."
>
> to read
>
> "The prescribed voting period on a proposal is seven days, starting
> from the moment that the proposal is distributed by the Promotor."

to the following:

> I propose that rule 205 be amended from:
>
> "The prescribed voting period on a proposal is seven days, starting
> from the moment that the proposal is distributed by the Speaker."
>
> to read
>
> "The prescribed voting period on a proposal is seven days, starting
> from the moment that the proposal is distributed by the Player
> assigned to the task by the Rules."

I believe this should be acceptable because it retains the idea of the original. In addition, a number of players have expressed dissatisfaction with the original form.

I judge TRUE on CFJ 119.

Call For Judgement 120- Fri Mar 1 3:30pm 1996
Invalidating Proposal 438
Initiator: Gumby (Neil Griffin)
Judge: Wayne (Wayne Sheppard)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

'Proposal 438 is invalid, according to Rule 416, since it attempted to repeal Rule 343 when the voting for Proposal 420, which was an amendment to the same Rule, hadn't been completed'

Prop 420 was distributed on Feb 21. The results were sent out on Feb 28. Prop 438 was distributed on Feb 25, while P420 was still up for vote. According to Rule 416, Proposal 438 is not considered valid.

I judge TRUE.

Call For Judgement 121- Fri Mar 8 9:30am 1996
Revising Proposal 457
Initiator: Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)
Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (Thierry Joffrain)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

In accordance with Rule 421, I would like to revise my proposal number 457 from it's current form:

--- current form ---
I propose to amend Rule 344 from:

"Any Player who wishes to leave the game for a period of time less than or equal to one month from the time of the announcement of this leaving shall be placed on "vacation" through the sending of a message to the Speaker containing the words "I, , am going on vacation for days" where is the name of the Player who wishes to go on vacation and is the number of days for which the Player wishes to be on vacation. This Player's voting or lack thereof shall not be figured into the passing of any rules until days have passed or until the Player informs the Speaker that he/she has returned. The Player's votes will then count normally."

to:

"Any player who wishes to leave the game for a specified period of time less than or equal to one month may notify the Registrar of this. The Registrar will then place the player on vacation, and announce to the other players the period of time in which the vacationing player will be on vacation. Any votes that were cast prior to the player going on vacation will count normally. On all other proposals the player will be considered to have abstained. If the player is a member of a political party, his abstention will not prevent the party from gaining their party unity vote. A political party is still considered as having all of their members, even if some of them are on vacation (therefore going on vacation cannot cause a political party to dissolve). During their vacation period the player may not be chosen as a judge for a CFJ, they may not be given the Magic Potato, and generally cannot be randomly selected for anything. As a general guideline, in all cases other than those outlined above, the player is considered to be nonexistent during their vacation period. When the vacation period is over they will become a normal player again."
--- end current form ---

to the following:

--- new form ---
I propose to amend Rule 344 from:

"Any Player who wishes to leave the game for a period of time less than or equal to one month from the time of the announcement of this leaving shall be placed on "vacation" through the sending of a message to the Speaker containing the words "I, , am going on vacation for days" where is the name of the Player who wishes to go on vacation and is the number of days for which the Player wishes to be on vacation. This Player's voting or lack thereof shall not be figured into the passing of any rules until days have passed or until the Player informs the Speaker that he/she has returned. The Player's votes will then count normally."

to:

"Any player who wishes to leave the game for a specified period of time less than or equal to one month may notify the Registrar of this. The Registrar will then place the player on vacation, and announce to the other players the period of time in which the vacationing player will be on vacation. Any votes that were cast prior to the player going on vacation will count normally. On all other proposals the player will be considered to have abstained. If the player is a member of a political party, his abstention will not prevent the party from gaining their party unity vote provided that at least 3 members of the party are not on vacation. A political party is still considered, for other purposes, as having all of their members, even if some of them are on vacation (therefore going on vacation cannot cause a political party to dissolve). During their vacation period the player may not be chosen as a judge for a CFJ, they may not be given the Magic Potato, and generally cannot be randomly selected for anything. As a general guideline, in all cases other than those outlined above, the player is considered to be nonexistent during their vacation period. When the vacation period is over they will become a normal player again."
--- end new form ---

I feel that this change is acceptable because it retains the original idea, and basically just corrects a part of the proposal which others have expressed dissatisfaction about.

The change to this proposal was put forward to give it more depth by defining the circumstances if and when a political party (as defined in R351) is entitled to use the special vote granted by R391. It also complements more neatly R447.

Since this fulfills criterion (2) set in R421 for allowing changes, then there can be no other decision than TRUE that would also abide by R101, R215 and R403.

I judge this CFJ to be TRUE.

Call For Judgement 122- Mon Mar 24 11:54:00 EST 1996
Revising Proposal 448
Initiator: Gumby (Neil Griffin)
Judge: chess piece face (Paul Swan) (failed to respond to CFJ)
New Judge: Mohammed (Jason Orendorff) (selected Mar 15 1996)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Gumby would like to amend his Proposal Number 448 from:

> I propose to amend Rule 208 from:
>
> When a proposed rule change is defeated, the player who proposed it
> loses 10 points.
>
>to:
>
> When a proposed rule change is defeated, the player who proposed it
> loses 2 points.

to:

> I propose to amend Rule 208 from:
>
> When a proposed rule change is defeated, the player who proposed it
> loses 10 points.
>
>to:
>
> When a proposed rule change is defeated, the player who proposed it
> loses 5 points.

Rule 421 states (in part):
"The judge will base his decision off the following guidelines:
If revision meets one or more of the following criteria, it is acceptable:
"1) The revision is merely a cosmetic change (i.e. correction of a typo, misspelling, etc)
"2) The revision retains the general idea of the proposal, only changing the details"

Criterion (2) applies in this case.

I judge CFJ 122 to be TRUE.

Call For Judgement 123- Thu Mar 14 18:53:19 EST 1996
Proposal 455 is invalid
Initiator: Mohammed (Jason Orendorff)
Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (Thierry Joffrain)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Rule 416 requires that Proposal 455 be deemed invalid.
--------

Proposal 455 - Thu Mar 7 23:29:09 EST 1996
Horrid Green Thing
pTang1001001sos

This proposal would create a new rule that reads:

"(i) This rule creates a nomic entity known as the Horrid Green Thing. Upon the successful passage of the proposal creating this rule, there shall be a vote to determine who shall receive the Horrid Green Thing.

(ii) Upon the first day of every month, the Player who owns the Horrid Green Thing shall have to pay a 10 Quatloos maintenance fee. If the owner of the Horrid Green Thing has fewer than 10 Quatloos, the Horrid Green Thing shall cease to exist. If there is no recognized nomic entity by the name of "Quatloo", section (ii) is to be disregarded, without affecting any other section of this rule nor any other rule regarding the Horrid Green Thing.

(iii) The Horrid Green thing may be traded between players only by mutual consent. If at any time the same Player owns both the Horrid Green thing and the Voting Gnome, they are both deemed to be fighting among themselves and any special abilites of both entities shall be void until they are no longer both owned by the same Player.

(iv) The Registrar shall be responsible for keeping track of the owner of the Horrid Green Thing."

-----

This CFJ is potentially very litigious.
Since I must base my decision on the rule set and past CFJs, there would seem to be a problem with the "Quatloos". Nowhere is such a thing defined in the rule set, thereby making the proposal meaningless. But R416 does not deal with meaning, only inference on unpassed -- or rather yet-to-be-voted-on -- proposals. And this is not the case...

Or is it?

What would the "Quatloos" be used as? Or for?
As payment by players, or later, used in deciding the fate of the HGT as defined in P455.
But then, the obvious question arises of how can a player be forced to use something that is not defined? More even, that does not exist in the rule set? This is clearly wrong.
The answer to that question lies in another proposal, P454.

Since this very problem satisfies the call for CFJ based on R416, there can be no other decision that TRUE.

I judge CFJ123 to be TRUE.

Call For Judgement 124- Fri Mar 15 00:16:41 EST 1996
Rule 416
Initiator: Mohammed (Jason Orendorff)
Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (Thierry Joffrain)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

If the proposal below were submitted while the voting on proposal 451 is not yet closed, Rule 416 would demand that Proposal 451 be considered invalid.

-----
Killing Proposals More Or Less At Will (new rule)

There shall be no such entity as a Call for Judgment. All rules containing the words "Call for Judgment", other than this one, shall be void and have no effect. This rule takes precedence over all other rules.
-----

Let us suppose KPMx passes. It would then mean that the players have decided it is a good proposal and valid as a rule. Hence, it would have legitimacy and indeed affect P451 since P451 talks of CFJ, making it "void and without effect".

But simply because a rule is "void" (note it doesn't say illegal) and "without effect" does not mean it DEPENDS on KPMx. P451 could be voted on regardless of what happens to KMPx since it does not require it for its action. If P451 fails, it doesn't matter, and if it passes, it's simply added to the rule set but has no effect: it is "void". However, it would be there and have an effect should KPMx be nullified, let's say.

The simple fact of reference does not imply dependence. Hence, the statement it FALSE.

However, let me go on here and anticipate another CFJ, because this ruling is based on the choice of the word "void" which allows me some room for maneuver. Had that word been "illegal" in KPMx, it would have been interestingly much stronger. Not only would it call into question P451, but also a few of our R2xx rules that define CFJs, and more rules scattered around the rule set. Let us focus on the P451 problem, as the others problems can be fixed by CFJs in accord with tradition.

The fact is that if "illegal-KPMx" were to be passed, it would be given legitimacy. At that point, by R416, we must agree that P451 depends on it failing, since it would find itself in an illegal position and that is not allowed. P451 would then be held until "illegal-KPMx" is resolved. If it fails it doesn't matter, if it passes, another CFJ has to be called on P451 since it is now an illegal proposal.

This effect of P451 is far reaching, but there is a name for it. It's the Ackanomic version of filibustering. As of right now, we officially have that extra tool at our disposal, and no counter measures. But it is expected proposals will be presented to the assembly in order to rectify this, either by modifying R416, or better, introducing new rules.

I judge this CFJ to be FALSE.

Call For Judgement 125- Fri Mar 15 14:59:15 EST 1996
Revising Proposal 467
Initiator: Mohammed (Jason Orendorff)
Judge: pTang1001001sos (Mark Nau)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

I hereby publicly request the revision of Proposal 467 from its current form,

-----
A proposal prefixed by "Pending ###:", where ### is the number of a current proposal, is vaporized if proposal ### ceases to exist but is not accepted. Vaporized proposals are not adopted, but neither are they, for the purpose of the enforcement of other Rules, "rejected" or "retracted".
-----

to

-----
"Assertions" (amendment)

Rule 416 shall be modified to read:

A Proposal is pending from the instant it is proposed until it is accepted, rejected, retracted, or vaporized in accordance with one or more Rules.

A Proposal may contain a line of the form "Assert xxxx." where xxxx is some possible event. This is an assertion. If xxxx happens while the Proposal is pending, the assertion is stricken from the Proposal (but the rest of the Proposal, and votes already cast on it, are unaffected.)

A Proposal that contains an assertion cannot be accepted or rejected. If its voting period expires, it is vaporized.

If the effect of the adoption of a pending Proposal #A depends on the adoption of a pending Proposal #B, and B is less than A, and Proposal #A contains no assertions, then Proposal #A is vaporized.

The nonacceptance of a proposal occurs when the proposal ceases to be pending if, and only if, it is not accepted.
-----

I am instructed in this matter by R412, which allows for a revision of a proposal. The following is the pertinent text from R412:

"The judge will base his decision off the following guidelines:
If revision meets one or more of the following criteria, it is acceptable: 1) The revision is merely a cosmetic change (i.e. correction of a typo, misspelling, etc)
2) The revision retains the general idea of the proposal, only changing the details
3) The revision is desired by a majority of the players (more than 50%).
4) The revision makes the proposal make sense where it did not before."

Covering each criterion in turn:

1) This is clearly not the case.
2) The original proposal sought to create a new rule, whereas the revision would amend an already existing rule. As well, the "Assert" of the revision goes well beyond the scope of the "Pending" in the original proposal. Additionally, the revision has a clause that vaporizes proposals under certain conditions. This was not a part of the original proposal. These three factors were sufficient to convince me that the general idea significantly differs between the two proposals.
3) My own attempts failed to discover such support for this revision that I would be able to say that it is desired by a majority.
4) The original was wholly understandable, and clarity was not the goal of the revision.

As the revision fails all four criteria, I have no choice but to rule FALSE.

My judgement is FALSE, denying the proposed revision of P467.

Call For Judgement 126- Fri Mar 15 15:03:30 EST 1996
Proposal 475
Initiator: pTang1001001sos (Mark Nau)
Judge: mr cwm (Eric Murray)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

I am Calling For Judgement on the matter of P475

According to Rule 416, P475 shall not be considered valid, given that the voting for P474 is not completed, and P475 has an effect that depends upon the rejection of P474. Indeed, it is obvious that if P474 should be accepted, P475 would have no effect whatsoever.

CFJ 126 turns on the meaning of the word "valid" in R416, when validity is determined under R416, and what effect a Proposal invalid under R416 shall have.

R416 itself is not clear on when a Proposal becomes invalid, or on what effect a Proposal it invalidates might have. Indeed, the phrase "shall not regain validity" might be construed to imply that invalid Proposals have validity until they are declared invalid, else they would have no original validity for R416 to explicitly prevent them from regaining.

There is, however, a body of explicit Game Custom in the form of un-overturned CFJ's (105 and 107) stating that that validity of a Proposal is determined at the time of proposing. By this standard P475, since it effects clearly depend on P474 on which voting is not yet complete, must be declared initially invalid, and never having had any validity. It must be removed from the list of active Proposals.

Can P475 cause P474 to be removed from the list of active Proposals, since its effects depend on P475 on which voting is not yet completed, perhaps by a CFJ identical to this one with P475 and P474 transposed? The answer must be "no." It is bad enough that R416 allows mere Proposals to affect the game. If it were to allow invalid Proposals (for example, Proposals not communicated in print media nor submitted to the Promoter) to have any effect, it would most spectacularly violate the Spirit of the Game.

TRUE

Call For Judgement 127- Mon Mar 18 3:15pm 1996
Proposal 476
Initiator: Mohammed (Jason Orendorff)
Judge: mr cwm (Eric Murray)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The proposal "Proposal Sanity Reform" and proposal 476 each depend upon the other's rejection. Therefore, under Rule 416, both proposals shall be deemed invalid.

Much as I'd like to rule on the intent of this CFJ, I must consider it as submitted. The two Proposals referred to in the CFJ are, in fact the same. The phrase "each depend upon the other's rejection" is, therefore, meaningless, prompting my decision.

I hereby submit a decision of FALSE.

Call For Judgement 128- Mon Mar 18 3:45pm 1996
Revising Proposal 489
Initiator: Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)
Judge: Wayne (Wayne Sheppard)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

In accordance with Rule 421 I wish to revise Proposal 489. I wish to revise it in the following manner: I wish to change the second paragraph of the Proposal from:

---
The Speaker will request volunteers for the position. In the case of multiple volunteers, the Speaker will choose by random selection. In the event of there being no volunteers for the office of the CotC, the duties of the CotC are to be carried out by the CotC.
---

to:

---
The Speaker will request volunteers for the position. In the case of multiple volunteers, the Speaker will choose by random selection. In the event of there being no volunteers for the office of the CotC, the duties of the CotC are to be carried out by the Speaker.
---

The only word that is changed is the final word of the paragraph. This change is the correction of an obvious mistake. The general idea of the proposal remains the same, while I correct this minor detail. Further, I contend that most players would support this revision.

This is clearly a typo. The change reflects the desired meaning of the proposal.

I judge TRUE.

Call For Judgement 129- Tue Mar 19 3:00pm 1996
Definition of Alphanumeric
Initiator: Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)
Judge: Dr McSpong (Julian Richardson)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

An alphanumeric character (as referred to in Rule 383 concerning Ackanomic names) must fit into one (and only one) of the following categories:
1. Capital letter in the english alphabet.
2. Lowercase letter in the english alphabet.
3. A single digit between 0 and 9.
If a character does not fit into one of these categories, it is not an Alphanumeric character, and is therefore not permissible within an Ackanomic name as defined by Rule 383.

My reasoning hinges on a dictionary definition of the word "alphanumeric". Webster's dictionary defines "alphanumeric" to be the same as "alphameric", meaning "made of both letters and numbers". The first definition of "letter" is "a symbol [...] representing a speech sound and constituting a unit of an alphabet". According to current game custom, we use the English alphabet. "_" (underscore) is not generally considered to be a part of this alphabet, and does not represent a speech sound. Current game custom dictates that a number is a natural number. Therefore, "alphanumeric" can be taken to mean "consisting of the characters: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789", and an "alphanumeric" character is one of these characters. This is in accordance with CFJ statement.

I therefore judge the CFJ to be TRUE.

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

Appended: Webster definitions for "ALPHAMERIC" and "LETTER" (thanks to the Webster online dictionary available from the "online reference desk", URL http://www.bib.wau.nl/agralin/gen-ref.html

Webster Definition for "ALPHAMERIC"

al.pha.mer.ic \.al-f*-'mer-ik\ \-i-k*l\ aj [alphabet + numeric] : consisting of both letters and numbers; specif : capable of using both letters and numbers - al.pha.mer.i.cal aj

Webster Definition for "LETTER"

1. let.ter \'let-*r\ n [ME, fr. OF lettre, fr. L littera letter of the alphabet, litter]ae, pl., epistle, literature 1: a symbol usu. written or printed representing a speech sound and constituting a unit of an alphabet 2a: a direct or personal written or printed message addressed to a person or organization 2b: a written communication containing a grant - usu. used in pl. pl but sing or pl in constr 3a: LITERATURE, BELLES LETTRES 3b: LEARNING 4: the strict or outward sense or significance 5a: a single piece of type 5b: a style of type 5c: TYPE; esp : a supply of type 6: the initial of a school awarded to a student for achievement usu. in athletics

Call For Judgement 130- Tue Mar 19 3:45pm 1996
Proposals 477, 493, and 494
Initiator: pTang1001001sos (Mark Nau)
Judge: mr cwm (Eric Murray) (Went on Vacation)
New Judge: Malenkai (Randy Hall) (selected Mar 20 1996)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Proposals 477, 493, and 494 all are in violation of R416, in that they all have effects that depend upon the rejection of P474. Indeed, it is clear that they each shall have no affect should P474 be accepted. I am aware that there may be other proposals that violate R416, but these are not included in this CFJ. A decision of TRUE shall cause P477, P493, and P494 to all be withdrawn.

This decision depends on the validity and accuracy of published game history and "existing game custom and the spirit of the game" as allowed by R215.

Clearly, according to the historical archive of "proposals 451-500" on the Ackanomic web page, P474 was "Retracted By Author Using Rule 423". As R423 was active and valid and would permit such an action, it is deemed that P474 was legally "retracted".

The question is, can a "retracted" proposal affect the game. Clearly a body of Game Custom has been building that would say that it could not. CFJ 126 builds on this body, I quote: "It is bad enough that R416 allows mere proposals to affect the game. If it were to allow invalid Proposals (...) to have any effect, it would most spectacularly violate the Spirit of the Game". Continuing to build on this body of thought, allowing a retracted proposal to affect the game would violate Game Custom.

Therefore, as P474 is retracted and cannot affect the game, P477, P493, and P494 do not depend on the rejection of P474, and thus do not violate R416, hence my judgement of FALSE.