CALL FOR JUDGEMENT ARCHIVE (101-110)

Call For Criminal Judgement 101 -
Subject: Constitutional Convention Proposal Distribution
Initiator: The Governor
Defendant: Wayne
Judge: SnafuMoose (selected at 1338 CDT on 20 May 1996)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Wayne has violated Rule 101.

On April 28, this message was published by "this is not a name":

>>(a) A proposal to hold a Constitutional Convention is not a "proposal" as
>>the word is used in any other rule.
>>(b) (1) Any player may make a proposal to hold a Constitutional Convention.
>>    (2) A proposal to hold a Constitutional Convention shall be made and
>>distributed in the manner that the rules specify that proposals are to be
>>made and distributed.
>
>This proposal just passed. I hereby propose to hold a Constitutional 
>Convention for the purposes of resolving the end of game situation. I 
>think P666 is completely flawed, and for some reason the proposal I made 
>almost a week ago hasn't yet been distributed by the Promoter.
>
>--
>        Mike Epstein     epstein@nyiq.net     Long Island, NY
>"I mean, it's a great story. It's got some great things in it. I mean,
> there's something like eight violent deaths." --Mel Gibson on Hamlet
>http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

This message was posted publicly, which meant that it went to Wayne. Therefore, the proposal to hold a con-con was legally submitted to Wayne. As t.i.n.a.n points out, section (b)(2) requires that the proposal to hold a con-con be distributed in the manner that proposals are distributed. I submit that as of the writing of this message, he has not done so.

I interpret "the manner in which proposals are to be made and distributed" to mean that Wayne must assign the con-con proposal a number and submit it to a vote. In the nearly three weeks since April 28, he has not done so.

I do not interpret the CFCJ rule to allow a verdict of FALSE if he distributes the con-con proposal after the publishing of this CFCJ.

Disclaimer:

I don't have a vendetta against Wayne. I am (a) testing the soundness of the CFCJ rule, and (b) moving along something that should have been pretty much done by now. I will not pull for or against the con-con proposal itself until after it has been legally distributed.

Procedure:

I would point out, although it is not required, that the publishing of this CFCJ to the public list is a valid manner in which to call the CFCJ, since by publishing it to everybody I am publishing it to Mohammed, the Clerk of the Court.

I don't ask for much. I ask that Wayne be required to repay my court costs (in other words, give me my A$50 back). I also suggest that he suffer an additional (mild) penalty, say ten points. I do not ask to personally profit from this CFCJ.

SnafuMoose's comments:
1) I agree with the arguments posted with this CFJ. Wayne should have posted the proposal for a con-con based on the wording of the con-con rule and other proposal based rules.

2) Penalties:
2a) Since I can find no specific punishment to be given to the promoter should he fail to do his job, and since I can recall no previous similar charge against Wayne, and since the flux of mail has been harsh the past several weeks, the Judge does seek to dispense mercy on Wayne (this time). The punishment shall be as follows:
2b) Wayne must publically apologize for failing in his job.
2c) Wayne will be penalized 1 point.
2d) Wayne must pay the Governor's court costs of A$5.

3) The Judge also orders Wayne to properly dispense the con-con proposal.

4) The Judge also feels that a proposal is in order that would require future similar proposals to be sent via private email in order for them to count.

Call For Criminal Judgement 102 -
Subject: Subject Lines
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: Meme Complex (selected at 1050h on 22 May 1996)
Judgement: Retracted by Malenkai

Statement:

this is not a name violated Rule 101.

In a post dated 21May96 to the public forum, claiming the Governor's score for himself, this is not a name used the subject line "Re: Score".

This is clearly in violation of the rule entitled "Limited Line Subject Lengths", which says:

"The SL for any message that does not fit into one of the above categories, unless it is defined by some other rule, shall be of the form: "Ackanomic: Misc (Explanation)"

I claim this is not a name's subject line does not follow this form. Furthermore, it does not follow any of the "above categories" of the rule, nor does it follow anything "defined by some other rule".

Therefore it is in violation of "Limited Line Subject Lengths", thus is in violation of R101.

While I do not agree, in general, that such an act should be treated with criminal proceedings, this specific case requires stiff penalties, as this is not a name is using this mechanism to claim the deceased Governor's score for himself.

Note that this judgement is on the legality of this is not a name's subject line, not on the legality of claiming the Governor's points. That can be dealt with elsewhere.

A DEDUCTION of 61 points from this is not a name's score, the amount he is attempting to claim from the deceased Governor.

A FINE of 50 units of currency (the equivalent of the court fee)

Call For Criminal Judgement 103 -
Subject: (none yet)
Initiator: snowgod
Judge: this is not a name (selected at 1358h CDT on 4 June 1996)
Judgement: False
Statement:

Player The Great Old One has violated R101

The Great Old One declared that he had won the game in a message titled "Ackanomic: I win". He claimed that the game is no longer playable due to R663.

R219 (winning by paradox) states that if the rules are changed so that further play is impossible the player may be declared the winner after a CFJ deciding the fact. So long as we can pass resolutions we are still playing the game. In addition CSRs can still be issued, as well as a call for a constitutional convention. I contend that The Great Old One knew that further play was possible, though difficult, and yet submitted a CFJ to determine if he was the winner. Therefore he violated R219 and in doing so violated R101.

A sentence in the Gaol of 8 days for The Great Old One.

Reasoning:

Rule 219 states that in the case of a paradox a player may call for judgement. snowgod claims in his complaint that "The Great Old One knew that further play was possible, though difficult, and yet submitted a CFJ to determine if he was the winner," and thus he willfully violated rule 101 by making his claim of a paradox win.

snowgod's argument rests on two premises:

- that it is illegal to call a CFJ with a statement that one knows to be untrue; and

- that The Great Old One knew that his CFJ statement was false.

The first premise is clearly untrue. I could easily CFJ statements that I believed or knew to be untrue; the major purpose of a CFJ is to establish game custom formally. Many players have called CFJs that they hoped would be judged false in order to clarify a point of debate. There is no provision in the rules for penalizing authors of false CFJs. Apparently, snowgod's argument is that R219 only permits paradox claims in the event that they are true. Upon examination of the ruleset, I see no basis, whether in R219 or elsewhere, to assume that calling a CFJ on a paradox win that one knows to be invalid is any less valid than calling an invalid CFJ. In light of the text and spirit of the rule set, I find that claim invalid.

With regard to snowgod's second point, there is no evidence to suggest that The Great Old One knew his CFJ statement was false. It is entirely possible that he believed and continues to believe that he should rightly win by paradox because further rule-changing is impossible according to his view of the situation. Perhaps at the time The Great Old One had not read the rules regarding Constitutional Conventions, Gadgets, and other objects with potential powers to change rules. Perhaps he believes that a Nomic game is pointless without the ability to change the rules. The mere fact that snowgod evidently disagrees with The Great Old One is not evidence that The Great Old One knows that he is wrong.

In addition, I find it necessary to add to snowgod's complaint by noting that the belief that further play is impossible is not the only basis for a paradox win. To quote rule 219: "If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of some action cannot be determined with finality, or if some action appears equally legal and illegal, [....]

I agree with snowgod that The Great Old One's CFJ is not true, and I am sorely tempted to return true on this CFCJ and put The Great Old One into Gaol for enough time to allow R663 to be modified. But this is not in keeping with the ideals of a Nomic, which are to follow the rules strictly and look for solutions within the rules. Upon examination of snowgod's arguments, I find them to be invalid. I rule false on this CFCJ.

Call For Criminal Judgement 104 -
Subject: Voting No
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: Techno (selected 24-Jun-96 23:45h New York Time)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Player Dr McSpong violated R 101.

Dr McSpong voted no in excess of 7 times consecutively on the recent string of proposals. This violates R 431, and thus R101. I refer the Judge to e-mail public messages entitled "Acka: Results 870-879" and "Acka: Results 880-889" for evidence.

This is not to pick on anyone, but the illegal NO voting could affect the passage of proposals that people spent alot of time on. Furthermore, it brings up the issue of rule enforcement in general, and gives us a chance to possibly test drive the Gaol and Criminal Justice system before some rule ripper "overhauls" it. Its nice to at least use the rules before "overhauling" them.

A 3 day sentence in the Gaol.

I judge this to be true. The penalty shall be a 3 day sentence in the Gaol.

Call For Criminal Judgement 105 -
Subject: Cruel and Unusual Penalties
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: Techno (selected Jul 3, 1996, 00:11h New York Time)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Player pTang1001001sos has violated R 101.

pTang1001001sos has invoked R 362, forcing Speaker/Acting Speaker Malenkai to initiate a process of removing certain players from the game. That action, in Malenkai's "judgement" is a "penalty worse than losing, in the Malenkai's judgement to incur it"

Malenkai has put forth rationale as to why that is such, but that matters not for this argument. All that matters is Malenkai's "judgement" that the quoted phrase above is true, and the fact, by pTang1001001sos invoking this rule, is imposing this penalty.

I now quote from R 111 (Immutable), in part:

> No penalty worse than losing, in the judgement of the player to incur
> it, may be imposed.

pTang1001001sos is imposing such a penalty on Malenkai, simply by invoking R 362. Thus pTang1001001sos is violating R 111 (quoted above), and thus is violating R 101. A verdict of TRUE is necessary.

As pTang1001001sos wishes to remove 5 players, including 2 former Speakers, and the founder of the game, and a player honored, by rule, the removal of one player seems to pale in comparison.

I, however, call for a penalty of EXPULSION of pTang1001001sos anyway.

[Note that the judge may adjust the penalty. Note that he may also rejoin, and probably be in better shape, due to some loopholes. That is not the point.]

[none]

Call For Criminal Judgement 106 - Mon, 29 Jul 1996 19:12 EDT
Subject: CFJ 113, back in the spotlight
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: Robert Sevin
Judgement: TRUE

Penalty pardoned by President /dev/joe at Tue, 30 Jul 1996 00:13 CDT
Statement:

Player Malenkai has broken R 101.

Extra-Nomic entities and CFJ 113 do not mix (or, why I voted no on xvcoffee and regulation of all extra-nomic entities).

I drink Coca-Cola every day, sometimes while playing Ackanomic late at night. R 706 regulates Coca-Cola, so presumably my drinking of the soft drink comes under the auspices of R 115.

But we know the reasoning of CFJ 113. The synopsys is that if the rules are silent on the issue, it is permitted, otherwise it is Protected (I've always referred to it as "weak protection"). The rules are not silent on the issue of "Coca-Cola", "the official soft drink of Ackanomic". I quote R 706 in part:

"Coca-Cola is hereby made the official soft drink of Ackanomic. The Financier must bill the Coca-Cola Company USD$16,209.62 as promotional consideration..."

This rule does not permit the *drinking* of the beverage, they only regulates its official status. Therefore my manipulation runs afoul of the rules, and thus R 101.

I've always been troubled by bringing extra-nomic entities into the rules. Perhaps this is why.

1 day in the Gaol for Malenkai

I judge this CFCJ to be true, and I proclaim that Malenkai is guilty as charged. However, I feel that his sentence of 1 day in the Gaol is too light -- we need to say enough is enough and stamp out crime in Ackanomic. For the capital crime of violating Rule 101 -- for drinking Coca-Cola when it is explicitly regulated by Rule 706 -- I hereby sentence Malenkai to 3 days in the Gaol.
I would also like to comment that some legislation is needed in this area to clear up some ambiguities. I will be calling a CFCJ on myself for commenting on Coca-Cola -- the mentioning of it's name would likewise come under the auspices of Rule 115. We need to formally determine exactly how strongly Rule 115 protects things.

3 days in the Gaol for Malenkai

Call For Criminal Judgement 107 - Fri, 2 Aug 1996 01:02:45 +0100
Subject: Illegal Witchhunt
Initiator: /dev/joe
Judge: ThinMan
Judgement: TRUE at Sat, 27 Jul 1996 14:04 -0400
Appealed by snowgod at Sat, 27 Jul 1996 22:26:07 -0800
Supreme Court's Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Player snowgod has violated R101.

Snowgod called for judgement against the players who voted yes on proposal 974.

Since the "blanket protection" fix of rule 592 (and probably before it as well), witchhunts may only be called by rule 729:

If, in a public message, a player refers to the Earth being round, or implies that this may be the case, any other player may call for a Witchhunt, by publically posting that they are doing so.

Although the votes on proposals which have completed their voting periods must be released publicly, I do not believe that the votes themselves constitute public messages. Thus, these players did not refer to the earth being round, nor did they imply that it may be the case, in a public message.

7 days in Gaol.

By rule 592, it is a protected action to call for a Witchhunt. Rule 729 defines this action to be "publicly posting that they are [calling for a witchhunt]." It cannot be denied, then, that snowgod called for a witchunt.

The first issue that must therefore be addressed is the legality of snowgod's action. Because the action is protected, it may only legally be performed as specified by the rules. The condition defined by R 729 under which a player, A, may call a witchhunt against another player, B, is that "in a public message, [B] refers to the Earth being round, or implies that this may be the case." Did the players who voted yes on P 974 do this?

Even if we allow that the distribution of voting results constitutes a public message which satisfies the "publicly posting" requirement of R 729, this court finds that votes in favor of P 974 do not constitute an implication that the Earth may be round, and they definitely do not constitute a reference to the Earth being round. P 974 proposed that players be required on certain dates to post a statement that the earth is round, but a vote in favor of such a rule has no bearing on whether that statement is, or is claimed to be, true. Thus snowgod's action was illegal, a violation of R101.

The second issue that we must address is how illegal actions are handled in Ackanomic. Possibilities include: they are considered to be immediately retracted; they are considered to be immediately retracted, but a game penalty may be applied; they are not retracted, but a game penalty may be applied; and others. The rules do not cover this issue, although it is the court's opinion that they should. Game custom, however, has much to say on the issue.

As far back as CFJ 113, it was been established that illegal actions are immediately retracted -- that is, treated as if they never occured, with the possible exception of the application of a game penalty. CFCJ 104 involved retractable illegal game actions (too many consecutive No votes) performed by Dr McSpong. Dr McSpong was assessed a penalty for this action. Thus I find that game custom allows players to be assessed game penalties for illegal actions, including retractable ones. As I have shown, this action should also have been retracted, although it does not appear that the retraction and its effects have yet been correctly recorded.

7 days in Gaol, and transference of A$20 to /dev/joe.

ThinMan's reasoning hinges on the idea that a vote of YES on P 974 does not imply a belief in the roundness of the earth. This idea is clearly false. Wayne has a witchhunt called against him for saying:

"I call for all open minds to vote against this witchhunt. Lets pull Acka out of the middleages. If we stand (and vote) together, we will not be branded heritics for our beliefs." - (A statement which I note does not even contain the words earth or round)

A statement that makes no reference to the earth or it's shape, and this witch hunt appears to be perfectly legal. This establishes that precedent that it is the duty of the voters and not a judge to determine what does and what does not qualify as heresy by implication.

By casting a vote of YES on P974 there is the possibility (if not the probability) that said voters agree with the concepts expressed in P974 and thus are implying their truthfulness. Failing that, said voters still give the impression of agreement to the the expresed concepts, regardless of their actual intent when casting the vote (which is sufficient grounds for the calling of a witch hunt).

If the above is not true, than Wayne's witchhunt is also illegal as are all witchhunts that are called on implication rather than outright statement of fact.

The players who cast the votes were aware, or certainly should have been aware, that their votes would be reported in a public forum. Furthermore, the wording of R729 is very broad - only an implication of a possibility that the Earth is not flat is required. The Court finds that this minimal standard has been met in the present case, thus no violation of R101 has occurred.

Penalty for the original judge: 1 point

Call For Criminal Judgement 108 - Fri, 2 Aug 1996 23:03:42 +0100
Subject: 239 Illegal Witchhunts
Initiator: /dev/joe
Judge: this is not a name (selected Thu, Jul 25, 1996, 22:49 EDT)
Judgement: FALSE at Thu, 25 Jul 1996 23:16 -0400
Appealed by /dev/joe at Sat, 27 Jul 1996 05:34:28 -0500 (CDT)
Supreme Court's Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Player Calvin N Hobbes has violated R101.

Calvin N Hobbes called for a witchhunt on himself 239 times.

Since the "blanket protection" fix of rule 592 (and probably before it as well), witchhunts may only be called by rule 729:

If, in a public message, a player refers to the Earth being round, or implies that this may be the case, any other player may call for a Witchhunt, by publically posting that they are doing so.

This says a player may call for _a_ witchhunt when a player refers to the Earth being round in a public message. CNH sent only one such message, for which tinan had already called for a witchhunt. CNH may be excused for calling the first witchhunt, since he may not have have seen tinan's message yet. The last 238 are illegal.

However, it also says any _other_ player may call for a witchhunt. I interpret this to mean that a player cannot call for a witchhunt on himself under any circumstances, since there is no other way permitted by the rules for calling a witchhunt. Thus all 239 of the witchhunts CNH called for are illegal.

14 days in Gaol, and a fine of A$239 (A$1 for each invalid witchhunt called)

It is clear from R729 that a player may not call a witchhunt on himself.

According to Rule 592, a Protected action may not be performed except as specified by the rules. Since CnH's 239 witchhunts were not done as specified by the rules, they were not performed, and therefore had no game effect.

The question comes down to whether it is illegal to attempt to perform a prohibited (and therefore impossible) action. I hold, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that it is not.

It is game custom that one use of CFJ's (and CFCJ's in particular) is to establish explicit game custom that some action was illegal, and therefore cause that move to be retracted. I contend that the CFCJ procedure (Rule 710) is a meta-rule of type (2) or (3) in Steve Gardner's article "Breaking the Rules"; see the article to understand what this means (a link to this article is provided on the main Ackanomic web page). The customary purpose of a CFCJ is to cause an illegal move to be retracted (if that is possible) and additionally to impose some game penalty on the player for the violation, even though the illegal action is retracted as a result of the CFCJ.

I note that this type of event occurred with CFCJ 104. Dr McSpong voted NO on more than 7 consecutive proposals (my records show that he voted NO on every proposal from 873 to 892). This was determined to be illegal, and a penalty was imposed. The rules for these two situations are similar in form; both say that certain actions may not be made. Rule 431 says "No player may cast a vote of no more than 7 times consecutively" and then defines consecutively. For the case in CFCJ 108, rule 592 says "A Protected action may not be performed except as specified by the rules" and then defines all actions to be protected, except where other rules specify otherwise.

In the recent discussion, this is not a name rejected the precedent of CFCJ 104 due to it happening before the rewrite of protection, but this argument is invalid, since CFCJ 104 does not depend on protection. Rule 431 itself prohibits the voting.

>From R729:
> If, in a public message, a player refers to the Earth being round,
> or implies that this may be the case, any other player may call for
> a Witchhunt, by publically posting that they are doing so. 

As the witchhunts called for by Calvin n Hobbes were called against himself, not another player, the call for the witchhunts was not permitted by the rules, and the witchhunts did not take place.

>From R592:
> A Protected action may not be performed except as specified by the
> rules. An action's performance has no effect on the game other than
> those effects specified by the Rules.

The issue at the heart of this judgement is: Given that protected actions may not be performed except as specified by the rules, did CnH break R101? The original judge, tinan, ruled that it was impossible to attempt an illegal action, and therefore CnH did not call for any witchhunts, because he couldn't.

Clearly, CnH did call for some witchhunts, 239 to be precise.

R592 says that "a protected action may not be performed", implying that extra-legal manipulation is possible, but not permissible under the rules. A player who performs such manipulation, then, has violated R101. R592 then says that the protected entity has no effect on the game other than those effects specified by the rules. So, the manipulation generally does not have the claimed effect. One effect, however, is specified. That is the effect specified by R710-4, providing the reasoning for a CFCJ.

1 point

7 days in Gaol
A fine of A$24 (A$0.1 for each witchhunt, rounded up)

Call For Criminal Judgement 109 - Tue, 30 Jul 1996 19:39:51 -0400
Subject: CFJ 113 revisited
Initiator: Robert Sevin
Judge: Brinjal (selected Mon, Jul 29, 1996, 19:30 New York Time)
Judgement: INVALID

Statement:

Player Robert Sevin has broken, and is breaking by writing this very CFCJ, Rule 101.

Similar to the offense outlined in CFCJ 106, Robert Sevin has manipulated an extra-nomic entity that is regulated by Rule 706. In CFCJ 106 it was determined that by drinking Coca-Cola, Malenkai was violating it's regulated status under Rule 115 and Rule 706. Similarly, in my judgement of CFCJ 106 I spoke about Coca-Cola. As it is regulated, and nowhere in the rules is it permitted for my to speak of this regulated object, I have violated the rules. In fact, every mention of the regulated object in the statement of this CFCJ is another violation of the rules. CFJ 113 set the precedent of Rule 115 regulating the acceptable uses of entities. Therefore this is the logical, although absurd, conclusion to that CFJ. I suggest that before more people fall victim to this dread violation that some legislation is passed clearing up the relationship between Rule 115, CFJ 113, and regulated entities.

15 days in Gaol and a score deduction of 3 points.

Reasoning:

Rule 710 says that the statement of a CFCJ must be "Player X has violated R101". It makes no allowance for variations on this form of words. This CFCJ is thus invalid. The rules for CFJs (which I must follow except where they are contradicted by the CFCJ rules) now allow for a verdict of INVALID in such circumstances. That, in my opinion, is the correct verdict in this case.

In the absence of a TRUE verdict, there is no penalty to the defendant.

Comment:

The rule Coke Is It was repealed before this CFCJ was made. The initiator's arguments therefore do not stand up in their present form. There is however an important point behind this CFCJ, raising arguments which will have to be addressed eventually. It is not my business to rehearse those arguments here, though.

Call For Criminal Judgement 110 - Wed, 07 Aug 1996 18:24:05 -0400
Subject: Unlawful non-receipt of Salary
Initiator: snowgod
Judge: De'ghew (selected Mon, Aug 02, 1996, 19:20 New York Time) (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: Robin Hood (selected Mon, Aug 05, 1996, 19:23 New York Time)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Player this is not a name has violated R101

By recieving no salary for his duties as acting gaoler, this is not a name has violated rule 609 section iv (per rule 712 (gaoler, creation of), and in doing so, violated R101. R609 section iv reads: (iv) Acting Officers: The Rules may specify conditions under which a Player serves in an Office in an "Acting" capacity. In such a case, the Player is responsible for performing all of the Duties without receiving any of the Privileges of the Office. For any given Seat, there can be an "Acting" Officer only if the Seat is vacant.

A SENTENCE in the Gaol of 7 days.

Consider the judges comments on CFJ 255
I agree with them entirely.
I therefore find the statement false.

Go