CALL FOR JUDGEMENT ARCHIVE (506-520)

Call For Judgement 506 - Thu 1 Jan 1998 07:20
Subject: Voting on proposal 2545
Initiator: No other players (aka The Gingham Wearer)
Judge: /dev/joe (selected 98-01-01 09:34)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

When the two sentences below are taken as a single statement the second sentence is true:

"breadbox voted present on proposal 2545. No other players and no non-players voted present on proposal 2545."

I guess I just want to know.

No other players asked if the following statement was true:

"breadbox voted present on proposal 2545. No other players and no non-players voted present on proposal 2545."

The results show that exactly two present votes were cast on the proposal in question, one by breadbox and one by the player named No other players when this CFJ was submitted.

Thus, the question comes down to whether the phrase "No other players" in the statement above refers to the Ackanomic player by that name, or to its customary English interpretation. Given that there was already a player by that name when the statement was first published, the typical Malenkai's loophole reasoning doesn't apply. I find both interpretations of the statement reasonable.

Then we fall back to context. But the context here has one other player name and one English phrase in very similar constructions.

Finally, taking the context one level deeper, I find the interpretation of "No other players" as an English phrase more reasonable because it is linked by "and" to an English with similar structure in the same sentence, while the player name "breadbox" is more distant.

Call For Judgement 507 - Fri 02 Jan 1998 09:07
Subject: Church Existance
Initiator: ThinMan
Judge: /dev/joe (selected 98-01-02 14:20)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

No Ackanomic Church named The Church of Odo on the Wormhole exists.

I don't know whether the statement is correct or not. As Balsamic Dragon pointed out, proposal 2545 attempted to destroy a class of Nomics (for the purposes of Ackanomic). As she also pointed out, The Church of Odo on the Wormhole may have been a member of that class, as evidenced by the fact that it was a non-voting member of Internomic at the time of P2545's passage. TCoOotW thus claims, at least to Internomic, to be a Nomic. That is not necessarilly sufficient, however, for tCoOotW to qualify as a nomic under the rules of Ackanomic. It is also not necessarilly the case that the Internomic non-voting member tCoOotW is/was, under the rules of Ackanomic, the same as the Ackanomic Church of the same name. There may be other issues surrounding this question that cast doubt on the veracity of the CFJ statement. It is too interesting a question, however, for me to let it slip by via the statute of limitations.

As an aside: it is important to keep in mind that this CFJ determines the correct Game State for Ackanomic only; Internomic's (or any other Nomic's) perspective on the continued existence of tCoOotW is irrelevant.

Before Proposal 2545 was accepted, it is believed that the Church of Odo on the Wormhole existed. (It was recreated from the Cult when Slakko joined.) Trusting this, we examine the issue at hand.

The relevant text from P2545, written into R419.2, is the following:

Internomic is an entity. Member nomics of Internomic, excepting Ackanomic and Internomic, are named tradeable entities. Whenever a Nomic joins Internomic, it is owned by the Treasury. Whenever a member nomic(excepting Ackanomic and Internomic)leaves Internomic it is destroyed.

{{ The nomic Agora is transferred to Robert Sevin, and the nomic Pumpkin Patch Nomic is transferred to Red Barn. All other Internomic member nomics are initially owned by the Treasury. Any nomics which are not Internomic member nomics are destroyed. }}

While Ackanomic's rules recognize that other nomics exist, they don't describe any way for anything to be recognized as a nomic except for the other member nomics of Internomic. If it is at all possible that Ackanomic's rules recognize The Church of Odo on the Wormhole as a nomic, it is only through being a member nomic of Internomic, and these are clearly excluded from the destruction above.

BTW, there *is* actually one other type of nomic defined in the rules; it is in R1250.6 -- one of the ranks in the Eleusis deck. Fortunately, nobody was playing any games with Eleusis decks at the time this passed. :-)

Call For Judgement 508 - Wed 07 Jan 1998 06:52
Subject: Phoebe and Ursula
Initiator: Goldenmean
Judge: Slakko (selected 98-01-07 22:31)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

According to the last paragraph of Rule 909/14 the last two paragraphs of Rule 909/14 should have been repealed when The Gingham Wearer received "Fleas Shaking Hands #1" on Dec. 22, 1997.

Well, here goes my first CFJ, I figure the absolute worst thing that can happen is that I get an opportunity to be a crazy french-scotsman :)

The pertinent paragraphs of Rule 909/14 are as follows:

"Phoebe is still suffering from a falling out with her twin sister Ursula, who lives inside the Machine that Goes *ping*. If Phoebe's wisdom, as posted by a player, includes an attempt to vilify Ursula, then that player will be awarded 2 points in addition to those earned for posting the wisdom. If, on the other hand, a player posts Phoebe's wisdom which includes the details of a reconciliation with Ursula, then that player will not be eligible for the 2 point bonus for vilification, and will only gain 4 points rather than 6 for posting Phoebe's wisdom. However, a Trinket will be created in eir possession, titled "Fleas Shaking Hands #n", where n is the smallest cardinal number necessary to avoid a naming conflict, valued at A$2, and with the description "Phoebe and Ursula reconciling, cast in pewter".
If someone ever receives "Fleas Shaking Hands #n", for any cardinal number n, as a result of the application of the preceding paragraph, then that paragraph will be repealed, and this paragraph will then repeal itself."

The Gingham Wearer did receive Fleas Shaking Hands #1 as a result of the first paragraph being applied when e posted Phoebe's Wisdom on December 22 1997. 1 is a cardinal number, and so the condition specified in the second paragraph is true. Hence the actions specified in the second paragraph did occur, i.e. these two paragraphs were repealed.

Now, let's look at the statement submitted.
The two rules were actually repealed. No "should" about it.
Still, if they were repealed it was correct of them to be repealed, and hence they also "should" have been repealed. Further, they were repealed as soon as TGW became the recipient of the Trinket in question, according to the text of the second paragraph. I can therefore find no fault with the statement in question.

I judge TRUE.

Call For Judgement 509 - Wed 07 Jan 1998 23:29
Subject: Publically Knowable
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: Alfvaen (selected 98-01-07 23:29)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

All those events described in the sections of rule 910 following the header 'The Known Pages of The Ackanomicon:' for which no time of occurrance is specified (in that part of rule 910), occur at the time the outcome of the random determination is publically knowable.

I'm not sure, but I suppose TRUE is more in keeping with the concept of publically knowable (PK) and the way we have handled this previously. However, PK is a meta rule (read game custom), and one could take the Platonic view in the case of rule 910, meaning it happens when the reader reads the book, but we find out later.

On 97/12/6, The Gingham Wearer lost 5 points from rule 910, and the following entry is in the pointlog, corresponding to the time the random determination was PK

Dec 06 23:13 EST: -5 The Gingham Wearer: Vile prophecies from the Ackanomicon

The pointlog, of course, is not official, but it represents some sort of unchallenged customary interpretation. However, since it is a scoring change, it is regulated by rule 205 as to when it occurs, so scoring from rule 910 may be different than other events. Since timing of non-score- related events has not mattered in the past...

Well, I'm out of time. Its the judge's problem now :-)

Rule 205 states the following:

3) Rule Based Triggered or Mandated Score Changes

a) If the score change is due to an event occurring (such as a player reaching a certain score, or the adoption of a proposal), this score change is said to occur an infinitesimal amount of time after it is possible for the public to be aware of the event occurring. All score changes due to a single event occur simultaneously.

Thus, obviously the Ackanomicon's score-based changes take place when(or infinitesimally after)it is publicly knowable that a score-changing page has been selected.

As far as I can tell, there is no Rule mandating the time that other such effects(for instance, the gaining of A$50 for an "Inner Workings" page)would occur. Game custom, as practiced by myself(as the current Financier)and, as far as I can tell, by prior Officers, would tend to dictate that the time some event is publicly knowable is when it can be considered to happen, if such a time is not specified otherwise.

Rule 380 says that if a day of the week or the month is specified for an event, but no time of day, then the event will take place at noon. (Upon reflection, this means that the Magic Potato transfer always happens at noon, as opposed to "whenever the OiCoRT decides who got the Potato, but that's a different CFJ, I guess.) However, no date or weekday is specified for the Ackanomicon, so this rule does not apply.

The wording of Rule 910, which is purposely vague, but may be enlightening, says the OiCoRT is responsible for determining "which page...The Ackanomicon _was_ open to"(emphasis mine), so it seems that the random determination applies to what _did_ happen when the Ackanomicon was read. Thus, the non-scoring effects of the Ackanomicon can indeed be said to happen when the Vault was entered, as opposed to when the result of the random determination is publicly knowable.

Thus there seems no obstacle for me to assume that, for instance, one could enter the Vault of the Book with A$50, post the creation of an A$100 trinket iff one has A$100, and if one did happen to read an Inner Workings page, the creation would have succeeded. This kind of conditional action is permitted by game custom, and the fact that the result may not yet be publicly knowable when the action is attempted may be irrelevant.

(It could be argued that it takes some finite time to read the Ackanomicon's page, and thus the result won't occur until the random determination does, but it seems nonsensical to me, unless there were to be some restriction on the player's taking actions, such as leaving the Vault, before this random determination occurs. Otherwise you could read the page, go to the Museum, and then discover that you've gained A$50, or the Chartreuse Goose, or an Amber Banana, or an Otzma Card Art Thief...)

Thus I rule FALSE on this CFJ, although scoring effects do still occur at the time of public knowability, by Rule 205.

(Not that I would mind a Rule that fixed this, either for the specific Ackanomicon Rule or for the game in general...)

Call For Judgement 510 - Thu 08 Jan 1998 10:12
Subject: Weasel Words
Initiator: Balsamic Dragon
Judge: The Gingham Wearer (selected 98-01-08 20:30)
Judgement:

Statement:

The words "polite as possible" in Rule 374 are weasel words.

I don't think the standard of "polite as possible" is attainable or necessary for the enjoyment of the game by all players.

Rule 344 states:

"Any language containing these words can be considered vague and/or overly broad and tends to obfuscate the true interpretation of a rule. These words are known as "weasel words.""

This means that weasel words. (I guess that the full stop is part of the phrase since it is inside quotation marks) must "tend to obfuscate the true interpretation of a rule" and do one or more of the following: "be able to be considered vague"; "be able to be considered overly broad". I shall look at the second part first. Although I do not believe that the words "polite as possible" are vague or overly broad (the phrase has a clear and well defined meaning) it is however possible to consider it so. Whether considering it so is justified or not is irrelevant.

That brings me back to the first part. Do the words "polite as possible" tend to obfuscate the true interpretation of a rule?

My dictionary defines obfuscate as follows, "Darken, obscure (mind etc.); stupefy, bewilder."

I do not believe that the phrase in question does this. It may change the meaning of the rule from the intended meaning but this is not the true interpretation. The true interpretation is the one gleaned from the actual meanings of the words.

Therefore I do not believe the phrase satisfies both the criteria for being weasel words.

Call For Judgement 511 - Thu 08 Jan 1998 19:18
Subject: Vulcan busting
Initiator: Rex Mundi
Judge: /dev/joe (selected 98-01-08 20:35)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

If P2563, Romulan invasion, passes, Rule 1 will be repealed.

P2563 states
Vulcan changes its name to the following double-quote delimited string:
"Rule 1 is repealed. "
Rule 1 states
If Vulcan's name is ever legally changed, then all instances of the string "Vulcan" in this rule are simultaneously replaced with Vulcan's new name. (The quotation marks in the previous sentence are delimiters only, not part of the specified string.)
If this replacement takes place, the first sentence of R1 will change from "Vulcan once ruled Ackanomic." to "Rule 1 is repealed. once ruled Ackanomic." This first part of this forms a sentence, repealing Rule 1. So the issue is whether or not this replacement takes place.
In general, it would be possible to change Vulcan's name in this way, eg to "Klingon" or something, so we examine the final paragraph of R1 to see whether or not it permits this change.
"This rule may not be amended, changed in any way, or repealed, or for any reason cease to be in force, except as described in this rule."
The above replacement is described in R1.
"If this rule conflicts with any other rule, then this rule shall guide play. No new rule may be created which, if it conflicted with this one, would guide play instead of this one. No rule may be amended or otherwise changed so that, if it conflicted with this one, it would guide play instead of this one."
None of these is relevant, since no other rule is involved.
"No new rule may be created, nor any existing rule changed in any way so as to specify any alternative definition for any of the language of this rule."
It could be argued that changing the name to an action is a change in definition; however, I do not believe this is the case, since the language itself, not the definition, is being changed.
"The game state may not be altered in such a way as to cause the customary interpretation of this rule to be changed."
Again, it is not the interpretation that is being changed, it is the rule itself.
"This rule shall still be interpreted according to game custom, however, and this rule shall not be interpreted so as to forbid its correct interpretation from being established via otherwise legal CFJ proceedings."
This sentence does not prevent P2563 having its intended effect.
Since no part of R1 prevents this either, I believe that if P2563 passes, Rule 1 will be repealed.

If Vulcan disbands itself before the proposal is accepted, as permitted by rule 1, then the section of Rule 1 which would change the text "Vulcan" to Vulcan's new name is deleted, leaving no way to make the change the proposal is intended to cause.

I had already been considering this issue. It does indeed look like it works, except in the above case. I can only possibly imagine it failing in the following ways:

1. Vulcan's name is otherwise changed before the proposal passes (unlikely) or Vulcan disbands itself.

2. The phrase "Rule 1 is repealed. " is considered to still refer to the name of the organization, and not an action to be performed, either because it was added to the rule as the name of an organization, replacing another (former) organization name, or because the context around it does not make sense unless that string refers to the organization.

3. The initiator's mentioned reason, that changing rule 1 such that the interpretation of that text changes from the name of an organization to an action to be taken is prevented by the appropriate later-appearing section.

Call For Judgement 512 - Tue 13 Jan 1998 05:10
Subject: Malenkai's playerhood
Initiator: Bill the pirate king
Judge: Crackfoo (selected 98-01-13 10:30) (deadbeat)
2nd Judge: Malenkai (selected Mon 9 Feb 1998 12:03 EST) (declined)
3rd Judge: Supreme Court (selected Tue 10 Feb 1998 09:01 EST)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Malenkai was unable to leave the game.

Rule one states that "Those players who were members of Vulcan on August 28, 1997 [/dev/joe, Malenkai, ThinMan, andVynd] are Evil Overlords of Ackanomic (retired)"
This I take as meaning they are always the only members of the Evil Overlords Of Ackanomic (retired)(hereafter EOA).
The rule also states "No other players and no non-players are EvilOverlords of Ackanomic (retired). "
So malenkai must be a member of EOA, but as a non player cannot be a member of EOA.

So either malenkai was unable to leave, or the customary interpretation of rule one must change. As rule one states "The game state may not be altered in such a way as to cause the customary interpretation of this rule to be changed." The customary interpretation may not be changed and so malenkai was unable to leave the game.

See CFJ 513 for reasoning.

Call For Judgement 513 - Tue 13 Jan 1998 04:52
Subject: Malenkai's playerhood II
Initiator: Slakko
Judge: Red Barn (selected 98-01-13 10:35)
Judgement: TRUE
Appealed by Slakko (without reasoning)
Appealed by The Gingham Wearer (retracted)
Appealed by The Gingham Wearer
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Malenkai is a player of Ackanomic.

Rule 1 says:

The game state may not be altered in such a way as to cause the customary interpretation of this rule to be changed.

Earlier in Rule 1 it says:

Those players who were members of Vulcan on August 28, 1997 [/dev/joe, Malenkai, ThinMan, and Vynd] are Evil Overlords of Ackanomic (retired). No other players and no non-players are Evil Overlords of Ackanomic (retired).

The change in the game state from Malenkai being a player to Malenkai no longer being a player creates a conflict in Rule 1, between the first sentence and the second sentence. This therefore attempts to change the customary interpretation of the rule (clearly the interpretation cannot be the same if a conflict appears from no conflict). Hence the change to the game state which caused the change is a figment of everyone's imagination. Hence Malenkai never left the game of Ackanomic. Hence Malenkai is still an active player.

The second sentence of rule 2:

Those players who were members of Vulcan on August 28, 1997 [/dev/joe, Malenkai, ThinMan, and Vynd] are Evil Overlords of Ackanomic (retired).

may be interpreted in two ways :

i) that the members of vulcan on 28/8/97 who are also currently players are EOoA(r).

This interpretation, does not lead to a conflict that would prevent Malenkai (or any EOoA(r)) from leaving the game by rule 101. Since, by becoming a non-player, both sentences would concur that Malenkai is not an EOoA(r).

ii) that those players who were also members of vulcan on 28/8/97 are EOoA(r)

This interpretation leads to a paradoxical conflict (CFJ 256, 269) with the sentence that follows it:

No other players and no non-players are Evil Overlords of Ackanomic (retired).

According to game custom, by leaving the game Malenkai would become a non-player. This would mean that either Malenkai would continue to be an EOoA(r) according to the second sentence, or cease to be one by the third. In the absence of rule 102, or in the event that it had no effect on rule 1, it would be impossible to determine precedence between these sentences and Malenkai's EOoA(r) status would be indeterminate.

The creation of a paradox in the rule set, does not, of itself, prevent an action from occurring. Malenkai's exit from the game was perfectly legal by rule 101, the fact that it may cause a paradox in rule 1 in no way hinders his action.

If the following paragraph (of rule 102) :

If two statements in the same rule conflict with each other, and the rule doesn't define a way to resolve the conflict, then the statement which appears later in the rule takes precedence.

is applied, Malenkai (the non-player) would cease to be an EOoA(r) and no paradox would exist.

There remains the question of weather rule 102 may be applied to rule 1.

Since the preceding paragraph (from rule 102) predates rule 1, it is neither new nor modified with respect to rule 1, it thus by-passes many of the statements made in the final paragraph of rule 1. Furthermore, in resolving the conflict in rule 1, rule 102 does not in itself conflict with rule 1, thus it has effect.

Malenkai's departure does not change the customary interpretation of rule 1. It merely creates a conflict within rule 1, when the customary interpretations of its second and third sentences are applied, which is resolved by rule 102.

In summary:
Malenkai's attempt to leave Ackanomic was successful.
Malenkai is no longer an EOoA(r).

This CFJ is ruled FALSE.
This CFJ-like document distributed by Malenkai (who was not the CotC at the time? Balsamic Dragon?? Alfvaen???) is ruled FALSE.

I am appealing this CFJ. For my reasoning see the post I made when I first attempted to appeal this.

There is some conflict in the rules, that is not under debate. I fail to see how rule 1 can prevent any of the Evil Overlords from leaving the game, however. The following are snippets from the rules that I consider relevant:

(From Rule 1)
Those players who were members of Vulcan on August 28, 1997 [/dev/joe, Malenkai, ThinMan, and Vynd] are Evil Overlords of Ackanomic (retired).

(From Rule 1)
No other players and no non-players are Evil Overlords of Ackanomic (retired).

(From Rule 1)
If this rule conflicts with any other rule, then this rule shall guide play.

(From Rule 101)
A player always has the option to leave the Game of Ackanomic.

(From Rule 101)
This rule has precedence over all other rules.

(From Rule 256)
Upon a player leaving, the following procedure takes place, in the order shown.
<SNIP>
6) The player ceases to be a player and becomes an Undead.

Firstly I shall attempt to decide precedence. By right, rule 1 should take precedence over rule 101 and rule 256, and rule 101 should take precedence over rule 256. Rule 101, however claims to take precedence over all other rules. Rule 1 claims to take precedence "If this rule conflicts with any other rule". Nothing in rule 1 indicates that no Evil Overlords may quit Acka so I believe that rule 101 takes precedence.

"But doesn't this lead to a paradox?" I hear you say. By rule 256 if Malenkai did leave the game then e becomes an undead and hence a non-player. By rule 1 e would therefore NOT be an Evil Overlord. The first quote from rule 1 includes states "Those players who were..." note this is not "Those who were members..." It specifically states PLAYERS. Malenkai is no longer a player so this does not apply to him. Even if the rule failed to specify players I still believe that Malenkai would not be an Evil Overlord since the later section from the rule should take precedence.

I also fail to see how Malenkai's leaving the game would change the customary interpretation of rule 1. The customary interpretation is not that Malenkai, /dev/joe/, ThinMan and Vynd are Evil Overlords. It is that all entities who are players and were also members of Vulcan on August 28 are Evil Overlords. Up until now, the two have been equivalent but there is now a significant difference.

I think that that just about covers everything. Although I feel that any one of these points should be enough to overturn the judgement, I felt it necessary to write them all down so as not to be deemed frivolous. I shall also use this opportunity to point out that if I am wrong then Vulcan ought to disband, their charter includes the repeal of badly written rules and if they have made such an elimentary error in a rule which is intended to remain in the rules for ever then a sense of morality and what is write.... Still I digress, I firmly believe that this should be overturned to FALSE.

In brief, the Court agrees with the argument that Rule 102 is not prevented by Rule 1 from resolving the conflict between its second and third sentence. Rule 1 thus exempts non-players from being members of Evil Overlords of Ackanomic (retired), and, since it fails to explicitly prohibit said members from losing their status as players, nothing in Rule 1 makes it illegal for Malenkai to exercise his right to leave the Game of Ackanomic (and simultaneously forfeit his claim to being an Evil Overlord of Ackanomic (retired)).

It is interesting to note that Rule 1 does not make use of the traditional method of "unconditial precedence". Instead, it establishes its authority by stating: "If this rule conflicts with any other rule, then this rule shall guide play." This language neatly avoids many of the problems associated with unconditional precedence. In this case, it is clear that Rule 102 is not conflicting with Rule 1 by stating that one of Rule 1's sentences takes precedence over an earlier sentence, as nothing in Rule 1 forbids this.

The most that one can say is that Rule 102, by attempting to deny the truth of the second sentence, comes into conflict with that sentence. However, one cannot then synecdochically conclude that Rule 102 comes into conflict with Rule 1, for the third sentence of Rule 1 also denies the truth of that sentence. The most one can say, when considering Rule 1 as a whole (and without the benefit of Rule 102), is that it does not conclusively say anything about Malenkai's status as an Evil Overlord of Ackanomic (retired), after Malenkai has attempted to conclude his status as a player. Thus, Rule 102 does not conflict with Rule 1 by stating that its third sentence should take precedence over its second sentence, and is free to establish precedence between conflicting sentences of Rule 1.

The Court also notes that this verdict is supported by both game custom and spirit of the game.

Finally, the Court would like to address the issue surrounding Rule 1's statement: "The game state may not be altered in such a way as to cause the customary interpretation of this rule to be changed." Some have argued that Malenkai becoming a non-player represents a change in the rule's "customary interpretation", and the Court could hardly disagree with this more. Perhaps it would be an illegal change in customary interpretation if, say, the term "players" were to be modified so as to refer to what we now call "trinkets". (Although arguments could be made that even this might be possible.) It is decidedly not a change in customary interpretation for the current set of players to be altered, as this has no effect on the basic meaning of the term "players", which is what this sentence addresses. (If it were otherwise, then clearly no one at all would have been permitted to leave the game, and no one would have been permitted to join it, since this rule was enacted.)

The Court has returned a verdict of False, and penalizes the original judge one point.

Call For Judgement 514 - Tue 13 Jan 1998 19:57
Subject: cfj 513 cfj
Initiator: rufus (David Scheidt)
Judge: K 2 (selected 98-01-13 20:31) (deadbeat)
Judgement:

Statement:

This is a paradox win CFJ.

It was both illegal and legal for alfvaen to assign CFJ 513 to Red Barn.

If CFJ 513 was ruled false, then the CFJ was perfectly legal, as Alfvaen is Acting Clerk of the Courts. However, if the CFJ was ruled true, then Malenkai is still a player, and still the holder of office of Clerk of the Court, and thus required to distribute it. Alfvaen's actions were not legal.

Call For Judgement 515 - Wed 21 Jan 1998 12:11
Subject: This is a paradox win CFJ
Initiator: Crackfoo (Jerome Herrman)
Judge: Vynd (selected 98-01-21 13:11)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

CFJ's distributed by Malenkai are invalid.

Malenkai resigned as CotC before quitting the game. The question of whether Malenkai could quit or not has nothing to do with him being the CotC. Since Malenkai resigned as CotC, it is no longer his duty to distribute CFJ's. Malenkai also resigned as Speaker, so the duties of CotC do not fall to Malenkai in that way either. Any thread splits caused by the uncertanty of who was the CotC are invalid, and in my opinion, never happened.

Malenkai is one of two things right now. He is either an undead, or he is a player on vacation. In the former case, it is not possible for him to distribute CFJs. In the other case, he cannot distribute CFJs because (a) he is on vacation, and (b) he resigned from the office of Clerk of the Courts. So it is not possible for Malenkai to distribute CFJs. Anything that Malenkai distributes now that looks like a CFJ is not. The only player which can distribute CFJs, at the time this CFJ was made, is the Clerk of the Courts, namely Balsamic Dragon. This is true regardless of anything that happened before Malenkai attempted to leave the game, and regardless of whether or not he succeeded in leaving at that time. For the record, let me note that with this judgement I am *not* trying to say that Malenkai could never distribute CFJs, or that any CFJs he distributed in the past were or were not invalid. With that said, I am ruling this CFJ FALSE.

So why am I returning a verdict of FALSE? Well, when it comes to CFJs, Invalid has a very specific meaning. It is a judgement which can be returned on CFJs, and only under specific circumstances (see Rules 211, 212, and 214). It does not mean that the CFJ was not a legitimate CFJ. Since Malenkai simply cannot distribute CFJs at all, it isn't possible that they would be invalid. They aren't anything, they don't exist. Not as CFJs anyway.

Now that I have ruled on the statement, a few words on what the reasoning seems to be addressing. It is not the case that Malenkai resigned from his offices before leaving the game. Rule 256 decalres that, once a player has left the game, then the following steps, including removal from office, occur. Interestingly, however, the steps listed in Rule 256 are applied in order. The second of these steps is: "The player is removed from all offices." The last of the steps is: "The player ceases to be a player and becomes and undead."

As I understand it, the arguement for Malenkai not being able to quit the game is that it would cause him to simultaneously be a non-player (Undead) and an Evil Overlord of Ackanomic (Retired), which is against Rule 1. What a careful reading of Rule 256 reveals is that, by applying the steps in order, it is only *after* Malenkai is stripped of his offices that Rule 256 attempts to make him a non-player. Thus, even if Rule 1 prevented Malenkai from quiting the game, it did not prevent him from being removed from all of his offices.

It is unfortunate that the language surrounding CFJs is such that I have to read Crackfoo's statement as FALSE. His reasoning demonstrates well that Malenkai ceased to be the Clerk of the Courts (or hold any other office, or money, or etc) when he tried to leave the game. I applaud him for his perceptiveness, as it is clear no one else in Acka caught this fact. I feel I must apologize for returning a FALSE verdict, but legaly the reasoning for this CFJ (both Crackfoo's and my own) is not binding, while the statement is. If it is any consolation, I do not believe that this judgement meets the requirements to be a Paradox Win CFJ, so Crackfoo does not recieve the Goose.

Call For Judgement 516 - Mon 26 Jan 1998 15:39
Subject: Hall of Elders
Initiator: Alfvaen
Judge: Vynd (selected January 26, 1998, 2:30 p.m.)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Archie Leach may not be nominated for the Hall of Elders.

Rule 843, "Hall of Elders", states:

2) Whenever a player leaves the game, their likeness (hereafter, where appropriate, referred to as if it were the actual player) is eligible to be enshrined in the Hall of Elders. They shall be a candidate for such an honor if someone nominates them (via a public message) for such within 3 days of them leaving the game. If multiple players nominate the same departing player, they are only considered nominated once.

But Archie Leach was "removed from the game", by Rule 255, for being On Ice for 60 days. I believe that this is not the same as _leaving_ the game, and so a player removed in this manner is not eligible for Elderhood.

I am ruling this CFJ FALSE. I can find no rules that unambigously define leaving the game or being removed from the game. Game custom seems to support treating these as the same. Players who are removed from the game have been treated exactly the same as players who left voluntarily for as far back as I can find records. I therefor find no reason to rule that in this case they should be treated otherwise.

Call For Judgement 517 - Mon 26 Jan 1998 14:16
Subject: It's a bird, it's a plane, ...
Initiator: else...if
Judge: Slakko (selected January 26, 1998, 2:30 p.m.) (deadbeat)
2nd Judge: Malenkai (selected January 30, 12:30 p.m.)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

else...if is unable to fly.

Rule 947 states that "A player wearing the Chartreuse Cape has the ability to fly as if he had a wings mutation." A player possesing the wings mutation may not fly if they have more than one head, as else...if does. Therefore else...if is unable to fly even though he is wearing the Chartreuse Cape.

Rule 101, in part:

> Actions described in the rules may only be performed, and shall
> only have those effects, as specified by the rules.

Rule 342 describes how and when the Spelling Bee may fly.
Rule 620 describes how and when the Chartreuse Goose may fly.
Rule 835 describes how the game state may be changed by a player 'with flying' (which I construe as 'a player that can fly').

Flying is thus regulated by the rules. No other rules, however, including rule 854, describe a way for any entity besides the Goose or Bee to fly. (Players with Wings need not worry about dangling, and they may reattach buildings and suction cups and the like, but no where does that rule, or any other, describe flying, except as noted above). In other words, Wings do not confer the ability to fly in the first place.

Rule 947 appears to confer the ability to fly:

> A player wearing the Chartreuse Cape has the ability to 
> fly as if he had a wings mutation.

but it does not. Its like saying, 'a player with the cape may fly as if e submitted a proposal'. Since submitting a proposal confers no ability to fly, the cape confers no ability to fly in this example. Likewise, wings mutations do not confer the ability to fly, therefore the cape does not either, therefore else...if may not fly via the cape, nor via any other means, since flying is a regulated action, and the rules do not describe a way for him to do so, therefore the statement I was asked to judge is TRUE. I point out that if wings did confer the ability to fly, this CFJ would be FALSE, because the restriction is that a player with an extra head may not own wings, NOT that a player with an extra head may not fly.

Call For Judgement 518 - Mon 26 Jan 1998 15:44
Subject: "Harfer Fee"
Initiator: Slakko
Judge: Slagothor (selected January 26, 1998, 2:30 p.m.) (declined)
2nd Judge: K 2 (selected January 27, 1998, 9:30 a.m.)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

There is an Organization called "the standard Harfer Fee".

Rule 1007 states that

>An attempt to perform this action fails if, at the time of the attempt,
>(1) the organization does not own at least the standard Harfer Fee, or
>(2) it is not legal for the organization to have the specified new name. 

At the time that The Gingham Wearer supported the suggestion for "the standard Harfer Fee" to change its name to "Klingon", Slakko owned "at least the standard Harfer fee". Hence by Rule 1007 the attempt to change the name of "the standard Harfer Fee" failed, and hence it is still called "the standard Harfer Fee".

Rule 505 states:
The standard Harfer Fee is A$25.

Thus when rule 505 came into its current form, the organisation that existed prior to that, with the same name, was changed into A$25.

Even were this not the case, Rule 505 clearly defines what 'the standard Harfer Fee' is (A$25). Using this definition, it would seem fair to say that where the rules are concerned, the phrase "the standard harfer fee" is equivalent to "A$25".

Given that "the standard harfer fee" is a rule defined term, the most reasonable interpretation of rule 1007 would be that that, at least A$25 is required for an organisation to change its name, rather than ownership of a particular trinket which happens to have a phrase in its name which means $A25.

If the organisation "the standard Harfer Fee" had continued to exist after rule 505 was altered to its current form, then since the appropriate protocol was followed, that organisation would have changed its name to 'Klingon'

Either way, at the time that this CFJ was submitted, no organisation called 'the standard harfer fee' existed.

This CFJ is FALSE.

Call For Judgement 519 - Mon 26 Jan 1998 15:45
Subject: Rule 1
Initiator: Slakko
Judge: rufus (selected January 26, 1998, 2:30 p.m.)
Judgement: TRUE
Appealed by Malenkai
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

There is no Rule in the current ruleset numbered 1.

When Vulcan changed its name to Rule 1 is Repealed. #1, the first sentence of Rule 1 stated "Rule 1 is Repealed." No other sentence contradicts this, and so as soon as Proposal 2611 passed, Rule 1 was repealed.

Rule 1 says it is repealed. Rule further says that it cannot be changed accept in accordance with Rule 1. It doesn't confict with itself, so it seems to have been repealed.

I will provide reasoning via my Bronze Torch when I have more time, but in case I do not get to it, the gist of my argument is based on the fact that the lexical analysis of the rule requires the string 'Rule 1 is repealed. #1' to be "lexed" as a proper noun, and that lexical analysis occurs before high-level semantic analysis occurs. (It cannot be denied that low-leval semantics occur in the lexical process itself in natural language, but that fact will actually bolster my argument)

At the moment that Rule 1 altered its own text in accordance with Vulcan's name change, the first paragraph read: "Rule 1 is repealed. #1 once ruled Ackanomic." This does appear to be two sentences, both of which make perfect sense. The first states that Rule 1 should be repealed, and the second maintains that something called "#1" used to rule Ackanomic.

However, the Court would like to gently remind everyone that we are not allowed to pick and choose the parts of rules we would like to adhere to and ignore the rest. If we accept that the first paragraph is two sentences, then we are forced to read the following as being complete sentences as well: "Those players who were members of Rule 1 is repealed.", "Members of Rule 1 is repealed.", and "If Rule 1 is repealed.". There is also the following: "#1's new name.", "#1 Headquarters, which is an Extravagant building.", and "#1 Headquarters as described above." Even worse are these examples: "#1, members of Rule 1 is repealed.", "#1 as a public action with no Rule 1 is repealed.", and "#1 Headquarters (via catapult) by Rule 1 is repealed.". All of these examples are sentence fragments, and hardly sensible, in or out of context. True, there are some well-formed sentences which do seem to almost parse. For example, there is "#1 and Evil Overlords of Ackanomic (retired) are always permitted to enter Rule 1 is repealed.", "Upon those twelve kaas of land is Rule 1 is repealed.", and "#1 Headquarters; other players may ring the door chime, but are only permitted to enter if a Rule 1 is repealed." There are probably other examples that are even more amusing.

But, note that if the string "Rule 1 is repealed. #1" is taken as a proper noun, the entire rule becomes perfectly coherent.

Now, add to the above the following facts, equally important if not more so: an Organization existed whose name was "Rule 1 is repealed. #1" at the same time that Rule 1 included that string; that Organization was the same one that Rule 1 referred to throughout moments before, when the Organization's name was "Vulcan"; and, finally, this last quote from Rule 1: "If Rule 1 is repealed. #1's name is ever legally changed, then all instances of the string 'Rule 1 is repealed. #1' in this rule are simultaneously replaced with Rule 1 is repealed. #1's new name."

All of these things combined weigh heavily in favor of reading "Rule 1 is appealed. #1" as a proper noun - more specifically, as the Organization with that name.

The Court sees no other reason why Rule 1 should not exist, and thus returns a verdict of False. The original judge is penalized one point.

Call For Judgement 520 - Mon 26 Jan 1998 15:45
Subject: Valarauker's Vote
Initiator: Slakko
Judge: Red Barn (selected January 26, 1998, 2:30 p.m.) (deadbeat)
2nd Judge: Malenkai (selected Thu, 05 Feb 1998 10:03 EST)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Valaraukar cast a vote on Proposal 2606.

Valaraukar's Blueprint says so. We need to know whether this works or not, but I don't know whether to suggest a true verdict or a false verdict.

See the reasoning on CFJ 521. ThinMan and I came to a verdict on that one last Tuesday or so, basically agreeing with the appealer of 521. I'm not sure its been posted yet because of my mail problems.