CALL FOR JUDGEMENT ARCHIVE (131-145)

Call For Judgement 131- Tue Mar 19 11:30pm 1996
Revising Proposal 497
Initiator: pTang1001001sos (Mark Nau)
Judge: Rusty Tapwater (Art Peel) (dropped out of game)
New Judge: Dr McSpong (Julian Richardson) (selected Mar 20 1996)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

I call for judgement on the following statement:

I am eligible under Rule 421 to revise my P497 from:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Objectivity
pTang1001001sos

A Proposal to create a new Rule which will read, in whole:
"(i) Upon becoming a Senator, a Player is no longer considered to be a member of any Political Party.
(ii) A Senator may not become a member of any Political Party."
--------------------------------------------------------------

to:

--------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Objectivity
pTang1001001sos

A Proposal to create a new Rule which will read, in whole:
"
(i) No Player who is a member of the same Party as a Senator may become a Senator.

(ii) No Senator may become a member of the same Party as another Senator.

(iii) Should there ever be more than one member of a Party who are Senators, there shall be a resolution of this circumstance, considered to happen instantly after the condition is satisfied. To resolve the circumstance, all but one of the Players who are members of the same Party shall no longer be Senators. The process of selecting which among them shall be the sole Senator shall be resolved in the following order of precedence:

a) If there is an involved Player who recieved more votes when elected to the Senate than any other, he is the sole Senator among the involved Players. Otherwise,

b) Among the Players who were tied for the most votes recieved when elected to the Senate, if they can unanimously decide who among themselves shall be the sole Senator, that decision shall be enforced. Otherwise,

c) The sole Senator shall be randomly selected from among those Players who were tied for the most votes recieved when elected to the Senate.

(iv) This rule supercedes all mutable rules regarding Senate membership and/or party membership.

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

Rule 421 dictates that "The judge will base his decision [on] the following guidelines: If [the] 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.

I shall examine these criteria in turn (with number (2) last):

1) Clearly this is not the case.
3) I see no evidence for this.
4) The original proposal made sense, so no.

2) This is the crucial question. The original proposal sought to limit political interference in Senate matters by barring Senators from being members of political parties. The revised proposal seeks to limit political interference in Senate matters by preventing any party from having more than one Senator at a time. I believe that the revised proposal does retain the "general idea" of the original proposal, "only changing the details". I therefore find that criterion (2) is satisfied.

Since one of the above criteria is true, I find the CFJ to be TRUE.

The court would, however, like it be known that it does not favour revisions which are as extensive as this one.

Call For Judgement 132- Tue Mar 19 11:45pm 1996
Clarifying Rule 212
Initiator: Fon_Ahimnorsty (Adrian Smith)
Judge: Mohammed (Jason Orendorff) (failed to respond to CFJ)
New Judge: Malenkai (Randy Hall) (selected Mar 23 1996)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Other in rule 212 is defined as 'players other than the Speaker'.

Although R212 is not clearly worded and a judgement based on its content alone is impossible, "Spirit of the Game", "Game Custom", and common sense all call for the definition of 'other' to be 'players other than the player invoking Judgement'; which is not always the Speaker. Hence my decision of FALSE.

Call For Judgement 133- Wed Mar 20 10:30pm 1996
Revising Proposal 499
Initiator: Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)
Judge: Aziz Al-Afaliq (failed to respond to CFJ)
New Judge: Mohammed (Jason Orendorff) (selected Mar 24 1996)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

In accordance with Rule 421 I wish to revise my Proposal 499. I wish to revise the portion of it that reads:

"Players should use these subjects for any message sent concerning the game. Minor variations are allowed in all cases, as long as the key word remains changed, and if the SL begins with the standard "Ackanomic". If a player fails to use these standardized subjects, they will recieve a penalty of a deduction of one point from their score."

This portion ought to be revised to read:

"Players should use these subjects for any message sent concerning the game. Minor variations are allowed in all cases, as long as the key word remains unchanged, and if the SL begins with the standard "Ackanomic" (or "re: Ackanomic, or minor variants thereof). If a player fails to use these standardized subjects, they will recieve a penalty of a deduction of one point from their score."

The revisions correct a mistake on my part (I had intended for any SL to be ok if the key word was unchanged, not changed) and also clearly defines one of the minor variations that had been brought up in discussion of the proposal. This clearly fits under the guidelines defined in Rule 421 for revising a proposal.

None necessary. A real no-brainer.

TRUE

Call for Judgement 134 - Sun Mar 24 5:15am 1996
Proposal 483
Initiator: Malenkai (Randy Hall)
Judge: CrLf (Marek Jedlinski) (dropped out of game)
New Judge: Simon Marty Harriman (Andy Swan) (selected Mar 24 1996)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Rule 416 requires that Proposal 483 be deemed invalid, and thus, by established Game Custom, be withdrawn.

Clearly the line in P483 reading

"Shoud all of the 6 listed proposals pass, as well as this one, then the Player by the Ackanomic name "Calvin N Hobbes (the author) will have 70 points deducted from his score."

is an "effect which depends upon the Adoption" of P482, (among others), and thus is deemed invalid by R416.

My judgement is true. According to the current rule set anyway. Now I reserve the right to think that the rules making this true are somewhat comparable to country music(i.e. they suck), but according to the rules we got now this proposal must be withdrawn. Sorry Calvin N Hobbes. I voted for it any way if it is any consolation. According to the current rule set anyway. Now I reserve the right to think that the rules making this true are somewhat comparable to country music(i.e. they suck), but according to the rules we got now this proposal must be withdrawn. Sorry Calvin N Hobbes. I voted for it any way if it is any consolation.

Call for Judgement 135 - Mon Mar 25 2:45pm 1996
Revising Proposal 515
Initiator: Dr McSpong (Julian Richardson)
1st Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (Thierry Joffrain) (decision: undecided)
Judgement: UNDECIDED
2nd Judge: Gumby (Neil Griffin) (selected Mar 27 1996) (dropped out of game)
3rd Judge: Pogie (Eric Pogrelis) (selected Mar 29 1996) (dropped out of game)
4th Judge: fon (Adrian Smith) (selected Apr 2 1996)
New Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Hi, I would like to amend proposal 515 which was originally:

-----
Amend rule 383, replacing the words "twenty alphanumeric characters" by:

"twenty characters. Only the following characters are permissible in Official Ackanomic Names: the upper and lower case letters of the English alphabet, the digits 0-9, and the space character."

[Note: if you think you have a good reason for having a name which does not meet these simple criteria, you can of course submit a proposal allowing it.]
-----

...to read:

-----
Amend rule 383, replacing the words "The Name must consist of at least four, and no more than twenty alphanumeric characters."

by:

The Official Ackanomic Name must consist of one or more Ackanomic Nomenclative Units (ANU's). Adjacent ANU's must be separated by a single space character. An ANU consists of four or more Ackanomic Nomenclative Microunits (ANmU's). Each ANmU must be either an upper or lower case letter of the English alphabet, or a single digit between 0 and 9 inclusive. No Official Ackanomic Name may be longer contain more than twenty characters.

[Note: if you think you have a good reason for having a name which does not meet these simple criteria, you can of course submit a proposal allowing it.]
-----

This judge is undecided as to whether this amendment is really making things clearer or adding extras. It may be that a vote should be taken to see if a majority of players want that change.

I judge this CFJ to be UNDECIDED.

Aesthetics. There is a better version currently up as proposal, anyway, so this judgement clears the way for it.

FALSE

Call for Judgement 136 - Mon Mar 25 5:00pm 1996
Rule 478
Initiator: Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)
Judge: Aziz Al-Afaliq (removed from game)
New Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (Thierry Joffrain) (selected Mar 28 1996)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

The Speaker is the head of the Senate, but is NOT considered to be a member of the Senate nor is the Speaker considered to be a Senator.

Rule 478 describes the Senate. In it it states that there are four Senators, and that the Speaker is the ProConsul of the Senate, and votes only in the case of a tie.

I feel that this is clearly the case, otherwise there would only be 3 Senators other than the Speaker, and it seems that this isn't what the rule was intended to mean.

The rule is indeed quite clear. First it states the Speaker is not a member of the Senate, but simply its head, with a distinct title. Hence the Speaker is obviously not a Senator, nor does he/she have any of the duties or privileges of that position. In fact, the rule clearly states that his work in the Senate is simply to resolve a stalemate.

I judge this CFJ to be TRUE.

Call for Judgement 137 - Tue Mar 26 3:45pm CST 1996
Proposals 525, 526, 528, 530, and 531
Initiator: pTang1001001sos (Mark Nau)
1st Judge: Simon Marty Harriman (Andy Swan) (failed to respond to CFJ)
2nd Judge: Malenkai (Randy Hall) (selected Mar 31 1996)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

I call for judgement on the following:
-----------------------------------------------
I am entitled to make the following changes to my pending Proposals, per R421:

1) in P525, section (ii), insert the word "Functional" before the word "Offices" in the last sentence of the section.

2) in P530 and P531, replace all instances of the the word "supercedes" with the phrase "takes precedence over". To my knowledge, the word "supercedes" appears 3 times: P530 first line ; P531 first line & (iv)

3) in P530, append to the end of section (iii) the following sentence: "This section takes precedence over section (vi) of this Rule."

4) in P526, P528, P530, and P531, replace all instances of the word "Privledge" with the word "Privilege". To my knowledge, the word "Privledge" appears 8 times: P526(iii),(iv),(v),(vi) ; P528(v),note(vi) ; P530(ii) ; P531(iii).
-----------------------------------------------

At first look this is a no-brainer, given that the proposed changes are clearly cosmetic and/or in keeping with the spirit and intent of the original proposals.

However, it is not apparent that R421 can be used to revise multiple proposals with a single CFJ. There is also no "existing game custom" which would allow or prevent such an action. Upon careful re-reading of R421, however, it is my opinion that the initiator of the CFJ did comply with both the literal wording and the spirit of R421, hence my Judgement of TRUE.

I must point out that this decision is setting a precedent and thus is establishing "existing game custom" to modify multiple proposals with a single CFJ. The wording and spirit of R421 do not prohibit this. A good Judge must always express concerns about precedent setting interpretations.

Call for Judgement 138 - Wed Mar 27 12:30am CST 1996
Proposal 523
Initiator: Malenkai (Randy Hall)
Judge: Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

In accordance to R421, I wish to revise P 523, replacing the phrase:

"double the number of points they would have received had the proposal passed non-unanimously"

with:

"double the number of points they would have received had the proposal passed non-unanimously, or 22 points, whichever amount is smaller"

This is a minor revision of the proposal that maintains the same general idea, but changes only the details. Therefore I find this to be a legal revision.

I judge this CFJ to be true.

Call For Judgement 139 - Thu Mar 28 5:45pm CST 1996
Political Party Rules
Initiator: Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)
Judge: ILIOS (Alex Harisiadis) (dropped out of game)
New Judge: ThinMan (John Bollinger) (selected Mar 31 1996)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Rule 351 states that "The internal organization and guidelines of a Political Party are entirely the responsibility of the Party itself. Any titles or offices that exist within the Party do not affect in any way those that exist outside of it.". This means that the internal organization and guidelines of the party have some bearing on the way that the party operates. Further, this means that the party is allowed to create their own internal rules and guidelines. These rules and guidelines may describe the process a player must go through to become a member of the party. I claim that anyone may join a party, but they cannot remain in the party unless they follow the party's rules for joining it. The party's rules do not bind those outside the party, but anyone who joins the party must obey the party's guidelines for joining. Therefore if someone decides to join a party without the consent of the members of the party, and the rules of the party do not allow this, that player is removed from the party the instant they join it.

Recently a player tried to force their way into a political party. They cited Rule 351 (dealing with Political Parties) and claimed that a player could join any political party at any time, with or without the consent of the members of the party. They claimed that the internal rules and organization of the party were unimportant and irrelevant in this situation.

My reasoning behind this CFJ is mainly supported by the following points:

1. Rule 351 strongly implies that the internal guidelines of a party don't affect those outside of it. Why bother to say this unless they do, in fact, affect those within it. I do not claim that they absolutely bind those within it on all issues, but I do claim that they control who can join and leave the party.
2. Game custom has supported the system of joining a party only with permission of the party members. All previous game experience has shown us that the rules of a party have some bearing on who can join the party and who cannot.
3. Rule 351 also reads "If a Player joins or leaves a Political Party, he must declare it publicly.". I think the important word there is "must". This very strongly implies that the player does not actually join by sending the message. It implies that the player MUST do this in order to join, NOT that they can join JUST by doing that. The statement, in effect, says that "IF a player joins a political party, THEN the player must announce this publicly.". Logically, this does not make it true that "IF a player announces publicly that he is joining a political party, THEN they join the party.". It is clear that the rule does not say that you can join a party simply by sending such a message. Therefore I believe that the rule implies that to join the party one must do so in another way. That other way, I claim, is by following whatever rules the party has set up for doing so.
4. To judge this CFJ False would essentially cause a great deal of existing game custom to be violated. It is common knowledge how Rule 351 was meant to work, and how we all realize it must work. The wording could be clearer, but I contend that anyone reading the rule would agree with my interpretation.

---------
I call for judgement on the following statement:

-----
(a)
Rule 351 states that "The internal organization and guidelines of a Political Party are entirely the responsibility of the Party itself. Any titles or offices that exist within the Party do not affect in any way those that exist outside of it.". This means that the internal organization and guidelines of the party have some bearing on the way that the party operates. Further, this means that the party is allowed to create their own internal rules and guidelines.

(b)
These rules and guidelines may describe the process a player must go through to become a member of the party. I claim that anyone may join a party, but they cannot remain in the party unless they follow the party's rules for joining it. The party's rules do not bind those outside the party, but anyone who joins the party must obey the party's guidelines for joining. Therefore if someone decides to join a party without the consent of the members of the party, and the rules of the party do not allow this, that player is removed from the party the instant they join it.
-----
---------

This CFJ really has two parts, which I have labelled (a) and (b) above.

Part (a) is a no-brainer. By referring to internal organization and guidelines, R 351 implicitly allows for the existence of such. Furthermore, because the rules neither forbid parties from having internal organization or guidelines nor regulate such activity, R 115 allows parties to do as they please in that regard.

Part (b) is a little stickier, primarily because it contains so much detail and internal reasoning. Nevertheless, I find that (i) the nature of rules and guidelines is that they regulate the actions of those to whom they apply; (ii) the Rules do not regulate the internal rules and guidelines of political parties, so any such rules or guidelines that a party institutes are legal; (iii) anyone who attempts to join a political party implicitly accepts any party rules as binding for the duration of membership; (iv) if party rules and guidelines regulate the means of joining the party, then anyone who attempts to join the party without following those rules will be in violation of them if at any time they become binding upon him. Thus if a player joins a political party without following party rules for doing so, then those same rules remove that player from the party as soon as they become binding upon him, which is to say, if and when that player actually joins the party.

I go on to note that R 351 also indicates that a party's charter may contain information on joining the party. This implies that procedures above and beyond the contents of R 351 may regulate such activity. Moreover, I note that although R 351 states that a player must publicly declare any change in his party affiliation, it does not even imply that such a declaration is sufficient means to cause such a change. Indeed R 351 is entirely silent on procedures for joining a political party -- it just says that any player may do so at any time.

Lastly, I note that any player whose political affiliation is clarified by this judgement is bound by R 351 to publicly announce the relevant change in his status.

I judge TRUE

Call For Judgement 140 - Thu Mar 28 6:15pm CST 1996
Mohammed & The FOOZBALL Party
Initiator: Malenkai (Randy Hall)
Judge: Simon Marty Harriman (Andy Swan)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Mohammed is currently a member of the FOOZBALL party

I judge false. Why do I keep having these things anyway? Any way I think that the party can enforce it's own rules, otherwise why bother having them????

Call For Judgement 141 - Sat Mar 30 2:30am CST 1996
Revision of Proposal 539
Initiator: DevJoe (Joseph DeVincentis)
1st Judge: Meletus (Sam Brown) (dropped out of game)
2nd Judge: Gelwin (John Spickes) (selected Apr 2 1996)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

I would like to invoke rule 421 to amend my proposal 539, titled "Postmaster." I would like to add the sentence:

"If the office of Postmaster is vacant, there shall be no Acting Postmaster."

to the end of the proposal.

The original text was:

"There shall be an office called the Postmaster, with one seat chosen on a volunteer basis. The duty of the Postmaster shall be to create and maintain a mailing list for Ackanomic, so public messages can be sent to one address and forwarded from there to all players and observers automatically."

I will complain as other judges have that the CFJ was not properly phrased. It is easy to judge that you indeed would like to amend your proposal. A more appropriate wording would have been "I am entitled under Rule 421 to amend my proposal 539 by adding the following sentence: . . ." However, I will overlook this technicality and judge what I think is your real question.
Rule 421 states that a revision is acceptable if it meets the criterion: "2) The revision retains the general idea of the proposal, only changing the details". I find this to be the case and rule that you are entitled to make this amendment.

TRUE

Call For Judgement 142 - Sun Mar 31 3:15pm CST 1996
Revision of Proposal 555
Initiator: jeff (Jeffrey Manson)
1st Judge: SnafuMoose (Stephen F Roberts) (decision: undecided)
Judgement: UNDECIDED
2nd Judge: mr cwm (Eric Murray) (selected Apr 1 1996)
2nd Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

I wish to revise Proposal 555 to not have the following lines:

---
b) A bonus of .10 units of currency each time the "Gee, Wally" condition is met according to section (v) of this Rule.

(v) The "Gee, Wally" condition is met whenever all of the following apply:
a) A Player sends a message to ONLY the Financier that contains the phrase: "Gee, Wally, this sure is a neat game."
b) The Player sending the message mentioned in section (i) does so during a time period running from 28 to 42 days after the Player first became a Player.
c) The Player sending the message mentioned in section (i) has never before sent a message that triggered a "Gee, Wally" condition.
d) The message is received on a Tuesday or a Friday, and no "Gee, Wally" condition has been triggered yet that day.
e) The Officer holding the Welcomer Office has made no reference to the Player of the "Gee, Wally" condition other than the following sentences: "There is a way you can give me bonus currency if you think I've done a good job as Welcomer. I'm not allowed to tell you anything more about this."

(vi) Whenever currency is to be awarded as a consequence of the "Gee, Wally" condition, the Financier should report the change as a result of "mysterious conditions."

(vii) Any Player who makes any mention of the "Gee, Wally" condition except as allowed by this Rule shall be penalized .10 units of currency. This change shall be reported as resulting from "bad Juju."
---

All of this "Gee, Wally" stuff will just make the game more complicated and less fun and isn't worth .10 A$. The rest of the proposal is fine.

The statement was not in the form of a question, so any answer given is complicated by rule 214 which restricts me to TRUE, FALSE, and UNDECIDED.

...While I do believe it it TRUE that you want to change the rule, rule 421 restricts this power to a specific procedure that you did not follow, so I must answer FALSE. SInce a judgement cannot be both true and false, I must answer UNDECIDED.

First, how can I return a Judgement when the first Judge appointed could not? There is, in fact, no requirement that a CFJ be in the form of a question. R486 states that a "player who has a question or complaint" may send a "statement" to initiate a CFJ. R421 states that the author of a flawed proposal may "write to the Speaker and inform them of what the correct version ought to be," and the matter will be treated "as if it were a CFJ." These requirements have been fulfilled--the author, by asking to be allowed a revision, has essentially stated a complaint that the proposal, as submitted, is flawed.

Second, the substance of the CFJ, then, is the complaint that the submitted proposal is flawed. R421 provides guidelines for that determination. Each must be examined. In this case:

1) The change is substantial, not merely cosmetic.

2) While the revision retains the idea of an Office of Welcomer, it removes an entire complex apparatus for encouraging new players to read the rules. The complexity of the apparatus, the importance of the goal, and the wholesale elimination of both prevent a Judgement that the proposed revision is merely a change in details.

3) The majority of the players (which should be distinguished from the majority of the vocal players) have expressed no desire about this proposal or its revision one way or the other. (There is no way to determine what the players desire other than examining their own expressions of those desires. Unexpressed desires are inherently unknowable, and cannot form a basis for Judgement.)

4) The initial proposal made sense.

Since the proposed revision meets none of the criteria enumerated in R421, I must conclude that the original proposal is not flawed, and return a Judgement of FALSE.

Call For Judgement 143 - Sun Mar 31 11:30pm CST 1996
Pointlessness of Proposal 564
Initiator: jeff (Jeffrey Manson)
Judge: NumberSix (Ben Gold)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Proposal 564, "Amending Rule 415", is pointless. There is no reason to have a rule that just points to another rule.

The statement "There is no reason to have a rule the just points to another rule." is judged TRUE.

However, the statement "Amending Rule 415 is pointless" is judge FALSE.

So the CFJ 143 is judged FALSE, and NumberSix's proposal stands. There is no rule against rules that point to rules.

Judge's Comment: "However, NumberSix did practice bad lawmaking in that his proposal unnecessarily cluttered the rule-set. The proper thing to do would be to repeal the offending rule (which SnafuMoose has proposed."

So the CFJ 143 is judged FALSE

Call for Judgement 144 - Sun Mar 31 3:30pm CST 1996
Player Name: De'ghew
Initiator: SnafuMoose (Stephen F Roberts)
Judge: Mohammed (Jason Orendorff)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

...Formal CFJ on the following question:

...Is the player name De'ghew legal?

...The rules do not specifically forbid the name, but it would cause problems with some software systems/automation packages, thus breaking the "world" that is built around AckaNomic. This would then seem to be violating the "customs" of the "outside world". Which, while not specifically addressed within the rules of AckaNomic must be taken into consideration.

On the matter of protocol: Rule 486. says a player may email a *statement* to the appropriate officer in order to invoke judgement. It is assumed by the rules that the statement is either true or false. A question is an open sentence, neither true nor false. If I judge Undecided, this CFJ will bounce around until someone passes a proposal to kill it, so I'll interpret it as if it read, "The player name De'ghew is legal."

On the matter in question: There's already been a judgement on this subject (CFJ 129), as a text search of the web page would have revealed. The web page is at:

http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~mitcharf/ackanomic.html

Please write this down. Share and enjoy. Be careful to use this knowledge only for good, not for evil.

I'll follow precedent. An apostrophe is not an alphanumeric character. (Nor is a space, a fact the several players with spaces in their names have chosen to ignore.)

FALSE

Call For Judgement 145 - Tue Apr 2 4:00pm CST 1996
Revising Proposal 569
Initiator: SnafuMoose (Stephen F Roberts)
1st Judge: Narcisse (Hapexamendios) (failed to respond)
2nd Judge: Merlin the Happy Pig (failed to respond)
3rd Judge: Wayne
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

...After reading the discussion from ptang and some thought, I wish to invoke 421 to change prop 569.

...The following changes should be made:

"The penalty for filing an apeal is changed from 5 to 3 points [[[odd is good!]]]

"Change the line "With the verdict of a majority of the Justices being the verdict of the Court." to "The number of judges required to agree upon a vote is (majority +1) or unanimity (whichever is fewer. Their decision shall be the decision of the Court."

"The penalty for frivolous apeals is changed from 20 to 9 points."

...The original rule was a touch harsh (20 points was quite a sum!) The proposed change should weaken it to be more in line with other rules.

This proposal no longer exists. Maybe I lost track of it somewhere. Anyhow, I am not sure whether or not this can probably be modified now that R421 no longer exists.

It is probably in the best interests of everyone if I rule Against this CFJ. I doubt that anyone will object to this.

Go