CALL FOR JUDGEMENT ARCHIVE (146-160)

Call For Judgement 146 - Tue Apr 2 4:00pm CST 1996
Revising Proposal 543
Initiator: Malenkai (Randy Hall)
Judge: Wayne (Wayne Sheppard)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Under R421, I am entitled to make the following revisions to P543.

a) In section 3), replace "publically announced" with "publically announced by the current Party Spokesperson"

b) Add a new section reading:

"7) Note: The Party Spokesperson is not the same thing as the party leader. A party is not required to have a leader, and in particular, if one is a member of a party, one needn't be the Party Spokesperson in order to run for President."

c) Replace all occurences of the phrase "Party Boss" with "Party Spokesperson".

d) Change the title from "Party Bosses" to "Party Spokespersons"

Call For Judgement 147 - Tue Apr 2 8:00pm CST 1996
Revising Proposals 525 - 531
Initiator: pTang1001001sos (Mark Nau)
1st Judge: A Cross Stick (Darren Reid) (failed to respond to CFJ)
2nd Judge: Mohammed (Jason Orendorff) (selected Apr 9 1996)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

I invoke R421 to issue a CFJ on:
My Propositions 525 through 531 should be amended so that the following text is appended to each:

[[inserted to save this Proposition from death by lack of a quorum]]

This does not fall under the current rules for proposal revision. The request was a ploy by pTang to get his proposals delayed until such a time as they had a chance of passing (there was a moment there when it looked like the game had crashed.)

'Course, now it's a moot point. All these items have been reproposed.

FALSE

Call For Judgement 148 - Tue Apr 2 4:00pm CST 1996
The Result of a Vote of "Present"
Initiator: Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)
Judge: Mohammed (Jason Orendorff)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

If a quorum is met on a proposal, in order for the proposal to pass, two thirds of the votes cast on it must be Yes votes.

I bring this issue up for a reason. Recently there has been a controversy on the results of proposal 516. One side claims that a vote of Present counts toward the total number of votes cast on the proposal for the purposes of computing quorum. This side also claims that when figuring out if two thirds of the votes cast on a proposal were Yes votes, you disregard any votes of Present. Therefore, they claim, if on a proposal (where a quorum is met) there are 11 Yes votes, 4 No votes, and 2 Present votes, the total fraction of Yes votes would be 11/(11+4) = 11/15 > 2/3. Therefore, according to this side, this proposal would pass. However, the opposing argument (the one to which I adhere) claims that indeed, votes of Present count toward the total number of votes cast on the proposal for the purposes of computing quorum, but they ALSO count toward the total number of votes cast. Therefore on the same example proposal mentioned above, the total fraction of Yes votes would be 11/(11+4+2) = 11/17 < 2/3. Therefore, according to my argument, this proposal would fail. The two rules that mainly cover the issues involved in this CFJ are Rule 203 and Rule 463. In my opinion, Rule 203 basically is the deciding factor, and it does take precedence over Rule 463. This issue needs to be decided in order to allow us to determine what proposals pass and fail.

Even if we take Rule 463's point, "A vote of Present shall count neither for nor against the proposal," as a perfectly unambiguous, legally binding statement, 203 does indeed override it. Rule 203 states, "The number of votes required to pass a proposal is two-thirds of the votes legally cast within the prescribed voting period." Therefore Robert Sevin's statement is true.

There is a bigger issue here, namely, the extent to which a rule can change gameplay through indirect implication. Thanks to rule precedence, I don't have to decide that case today. The answer isn't obvious.

Call For Judgement 149 - Wed Apr 3 1:15pm CST 1996
Revising Proposal 578
Initiator: jeff (Jeffrey Manson)
Judge: Narcisse (Hapexamendios)
Judgement: [no verdict was returned] -- Invalid by Rule 1751

Statement:

I am eligible under Rule 421 to revise my P578, "Retracting CFJ's",

"A player may retract their own Call For Judgement (CFJ) by making a request to the public forum. The proposal may be retracted only if the a the judge has not decided on the outcome or the judge chosen has not accepted judgement on the CFG. The player retracting the CFJ shall suffer a 1 point penalty.",

changing the line:

"The proposal may be retracted only if the a the judge has not decided on the outcome or the judge chosen has not accepted judgement on the CFG."

to:

"The proposal may be retracted only if the judge selected has not accepted appointment or has not yet decided on the outcome of the CFJ."

Call For Judgement 150 - Thu Apr 4 3:00pm CST 1996
Meaning of "Active Player"
Initiator: pTang1001001sos (Mark Nau)
Judge: Jerry Kassebaum (dropped out of game)
New Judge: The Governor (Dan Marsh) (selected Apr 9 1996)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

A Player who is characterized by the following:
1) has not voted on a single Proposition AND
2) has never submitted a Proposal

cannot be considered to be an active Player.

I remind the judge that this term, active, is NOT defined in the Rules. It appears only in R201. I submit that as of this moment it is a matter of JUDGEMENT to define this term. Hence this CFJ.

I judge the statement to be TRUE, accepting the definition in the Statement as a definition of an Active Player until a rule defines it.

I direct that this judgment shall be applied to the first rule whose voting period expires AFTER this judgment is officially published according to the rules, and all succeeding rules, until such time as this ruling is invalidated.

(The important thing here is rule 201 "Quorum". This would have solved the Great Abstention Crisis if any of us were bright enough to think of it earlier.)

(I apologize for making the Tabulator's job a bit harder.)

Call For Judgement 151 - Tue Apr 16 9:45pm CDT 1996
Proposal 586
Initiator: The Governor (Dan Marsh)
Judge: Device (Dave Mackenzie) (failed to respond to CFJ)
New Judge: Robin Hood (Robert Shaw) (selected Apr 21 1996)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The recently adopted proposal 586 has no meaning and thus no effect because rule 464 is no longer in existence.

(Rule 464 has been amended to 499. I'm not against the effect of 586; I just like picking nits. Strict Constructionists of the World Unite!)

At the tome 586 was passed no rule existed whose rule number or ARN was 464. Both were 499.
However, if a rule 464 were to be created with that last line then 586 would take effect so the proposal has meaning and potential effect. I see no rule explicitly forbidding delayed ruled changes, but custom does allow for rules which are without force unless other rules are subsequently passed.
Proposal 586 is basically dormant, so there should be no rule 586 yet. This may require a separate CfJ.

FALSE

Call For Judgement 152 - Sun Apr 21 5:00pm CDT 1996
Bad Juju
Initiator: this is not a name (Mike Epstein)
Judge: Wayne (Wayne Sheppard)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

CarsesraC must be penalized A$.10 for mentioning the unmentionable in his recent proposal which proposed to repeal certain sections of Rule 555 (sections v, vi, vii).

Rule 555, section vii specifies that anyone who makes any mention of a particular thing (which I cannot mention here) will be penalized A$.10 because of bad Juju. CarsesraC proposed to repeal this section and sections v and vi, but rather than simply stating the section numbers, the proposal quoted the unmentionable by name. CarsesraC must therefore be penalized A$.10. (The Promoter, etc., should not be penalized, because any action they took in disseminating CarsesraC's proposal was required by the rules.)

(I apologize for the fact that I don't have the offending proposal number on hand; I checked the web pages but they weren't up to date. Mr. CotC, if you know the number, feel free to fill it in before posting this publicly.)

The proposal in question is Proposal 631. In this proposal CarsesraC quoted the portions of Rule 555 that he wanted to have removed. The portions of the Rule that were quoted did include the unmentionable thing.

Considering that there were alternate ways of amending Rule 555 without quoting the specific passages, I will have to rule TRUE.

Considering that there were alternate ways of amending Rule 555 without quoting the specific passages, I will have to rule TRUE.

Call For Judgement 153 - Tue Apr 23 11:00am CDT 1996
Winning
Initiator: Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)
1st Judge: De'ghew (John Spickes) (failed to respond to CFJ)
2nd Judge: Device (selected April 29 1996) (illegal judge by Rule 403)
3rd Judge: ThinMan (selected April 29 1996)
Judgement: TRUE
Appealed by ThinMan to the Supreme Court
Supreme Court's Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The Act Of Justice that would prevent Robert Sevin from winning the game is unlawful, and will not prevent Robert Sevin from winning.

First, the rule that allows Robert Sevin to retract a proposal is Rule 423. The rule that allows the Supreme Court to declare an AOJ on the President is Rule 508. Therefore, first, I believe that Rule 423 has precedence in this situation.

Second, Rule 508 reads "This rule stays dormant if Justices do not exists, until they do.". At this point there is only one Justice, so I declare that "Justices" do not exist, and therefore Rule 508 is dormant. I believe that Rule 508 used the plural form of the word Justice to imply that BOTH Justices must exist and concur on the AOJ.

Third, I feel that it is against game custom to allow the Supreme Court to alter decisions of the President in this way. It seems to me that what is implied in Rule 508 is that the Justices can nullify a decision made by the President that can ONLY be made by the President (i.e. wielding a specific Presidential power). I do not believe that the rule intended for the Supreme Court to control every action of the President, merely those actions that the President took as the President, not as a player.

I do not require that the judge agree with all of my reasoning in order to judge my statement true. The CFJ is only on the first statement. The reasoning is merely to explain why I feel that this is an unlawful action.

The AOJ in question follows:

-----
By R508, the Supreme Court of Ackanomia is hereby unamiously declaring an Act of Justice (AOJ).

This AOJ, shall read, in whole:

The decision of the President, Robert Sevin, to withdrawl P 644, P 645, and P 646, is being nullifed. His score shall be adjusted back to its value as if the proposals had not been withdrawn (260), and thus R422 shall not apply, and thus the President, Robert Sevin, should not be declared the winner by R422.

The explanation, shall read, in whole:

The consequences of this action are to end the game. The Court feels that it is in the best interest of the Ackanomia that the game not without proper Law to handle the transition to the next game. The Court views President Sevin's attempt to start a new game unilaterally as unlawful.

verified and agreed Malenkai
-----

Robert Sevin's reasoning regarding the precedence of the relevant rules is correct. Robert Sevin's right to retract proposals, established by R423, supersedes the right of the Supreme Court to nullify decisions of the President, established by R508.

The rest of Mr. Sevin's reasoning appears invalid to me. His reading of the dormancy clause in R508 seems like a long stretch; I interpret that clause to mean that R508 is dormant if the _office_ of Justice is not established by the Rules. Also, although I agree with Mr. Sevin about the _intent_ of R508, there is no game custom establishing his preferred interpretation of that rule. I see no legal basis for judging that R508 should be interpreted as he suggests it should be.

TRUE

> The Act Of Justice that would prevent Robert Sevin from winning the
> game is unlawful, and will not prevent Robert Sevin from winning.

This statement must be found FALSE. Even if the Act of Justice (AOJ) is determined to be unlawful, it may not be overturned by the actions of this CFJ. I quote the relevant language from R508:

"As soon as it is made public, it is in effect and cannot be overturned except by another AOJ"

Therefore, it cannot be overturned and it will prevent Robert Sevin from winning, which was its "effect", making the last clause of this CFJ's statement false, making the entire statement false, requiring a verdict of FALSE.

Although it is not necessary (rather than expose *every* loophole in R508) I will show that the AOJ was lawful as well.

Robert Sevin's comments:
> First, the rule that allows Robert Sevin to retract a proposal is Rule
> 423.  The rule that allows the Supreme Court to declare an AOJ on the
> President is Rule 508. Therefore, first, I believe that Rule 423 has
> precedence in this situation.

R423 and R508 regulate different actions. R423 regulates the ability to withdraw proposals. R508 regulates the ability to nullify decisions. As these are different actions, they are not in conflict with each other, therefore R210 does not apply, and Robert Sevin's reasoning above is a red herring and must be disregarded.

> Second, Rule 508 reads "This rule stays dormant if Justices do not
> exists, until they do.". At this point there is only one Justice, so I
> declare that "Justices" do not exist, and therefore Rule 508 is dormant.

Is it proper to say that "Justices do not exist"? If I showed you an apple, and said "apples do not exist", clearly you would see that statement as false, regardless of the existence of *other* apples. I am a Justice. The statement "Justices do not exist" is false. Therefore the statement "Justices exist" is true. It is common American English usage to use the plural construct in this way, to avoid cumbersome language such as "apple or apples exist".

All of the Justices that exist supported the AOJ, concurred on its language and delivery, and delivered it in the proper way as prescribed by R508. As this was done lawfully, the above reasoning by Robert Sevin is a red herring and must be disregarded.

> I believe that Rule 508 used the pluaral form of the word Justice
> to imply that BOTH Justices must exist and concur on the AOJ.

What Mr. Sevin believes is not relevant for rendering a decision. The language of the rule must govern. I quote the relevant language from R105

"If adopted, it [the rule] must guide play in the form in which it was voted on".

Clearly, by previously arguing the precedence of R508, Mr. Sevin acknowledges the non-dormancy of R508. Mr. Sevin is entitled to beliefs, but they are a red herring and must be disregarded.

> Third, I feel that it is against game custom to allow the Supreme Court
> to alter decisions of the President in this way. It seems to me that
> what is implied in Rule 508 is that the Justices can nullify a decision
> made by the President that can ONLY be made by the President (i.e.
> wielding a specific Presidential power). I do not believe that the rule
> intended for the Supreme Court to control every action of the President,
> merely those actions that the President took as the President, not as a
> player.

What is "implied" or "intended" by R508 is not relevant, and there is no existing game custom, other than the AOJ, to govern this situation. I again must refer you to R105 (quoted above). I quote from previously published material: "The President did in fact decide to do something. By R508, this decision can be nullifed by the Supreme Court. There is no rule about some actions being "presidential" and some not, and [that] only those actions that are "presidential" are subject to R508. This may be what the writer of 508 intended, but this is not what it says. By R105, [R508] is being followed as written."

Mr. Sevin's latest paragraph of reasoning is a red herring as well, and must be disregarded.

> I do not require that the judge agree with all of my reasoning in order
> to judge my statement true. The CFJ is only on the first statement. The
> reasoning is merely to explain why I feel that this is an unlawful
> action.

I have now shown that not only was the AOJ lawful, but even if it wasn't it could not be overturned by this CFJ. Therefore both clauses of Mr. Sevin's statement are FALSE, and thus this CFJ requires a verdict of FALSE.

No reasoning is necessary. ThinMan was the original judge and seeks to appeal his own verdict. Furthermore, this appeal is in keeping with the original opinion offered by the Supreme Court on this CFJ, and no new facts have come to light since then.

FALSE

By R569, the original judge must be fined 1 to 10 points. The Justices impose a 1 point penalty for ThinMan.

Call For Judgement 154 - Thu Apr 25 11:45am CDT 1996
Presidential Actions
Initiator: chess piece face (Paul Swan)
1st Judge: Mohammed (Jason Orendorff) (illegal judge by Rule 403)
Judgement: TRUE (disregarded)
2nd Judge: Techno (Jerome Herrman) (selected Apr 29 1996)
2nd Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Every action taken by Robert Sevin (or anyone holding the office) is an act of the president of the game.

i think that this is a ridiculous statement to make. as has been pointed out, are all web-harfer actions he makes presidential actions? is he making a presidential decision every time he votes? clearly not true.

-----Prelude
The idea that the above is "a rediculous statement" is facetious and wrong. I've discussed this with several non-Players and the consensus is that the rules are just badly written and that the voters should be more careful. No help for our current position, I know.

There is an immutable rule (R608) that states that the President is an Office. However, most of the rules mentioning the President refer to him/her as a player. To me it seems that many of us have used the word both ways without really thinking about it. So I will proceed under the assumption that "President" has at least those two possible meanings: President the Office, and President the player.

-----Argument one
The following is only cogent to those who know basic algebra. First I assume that Robert Sevin -is- the President. (Can we agree on that? This language is quite common in the game and elsewhere: Malenkai is a Justice. I am the Clerk of the Courts. Salvador Dali is a great painter. So Robert Sevin is the President.) Now, I apply "an action of" to both sides of the equation, and voila! An action of Robert Sevin is an action of the President.

-----Argument two
Come on, now, if Salvador Dali ate a sandwich, would you say a great painter ate that sandwich? I doubt anyone would argue that he wasn't acting as a great painter at the time.

-----Midnight snack for thought
To speak in the specific, there is a rule over which some controversy has arisen. The rule says, "They may nullify a decision made by the President," referring to a power granted to the Justices (who seem to be obscenely powerful these days.) The idea has been put forward that the President is actually one of several split personalities running around in Mitchell Harding's head.

My view, on the other hand, is that the President is a title hung on the player Robert Sevin, so that "the President" refers specifically to Robert Sevin the player, as long as Robert Sevin holds that office. Neither view is preferred by the rules, so I'm establishing this one as more in line with the spirit of the game (and the spirit of the English language besides.)

TRUE

Every action by player Robert Sevin is not a Presidential act any more than it is an act of the Speaker. If it were, he could say that retracting his proposals was an act of the Speaker and therefore the Justices could not overturn it. The Justices can overturn an act of the President but not the Speaker. As Robert Sevin was the Speaker and President his actions cannot be overturned.

FALSE

Call For Judgement 155 - Thu Apr 25 12:45pm CDT 1996
Procedure From Winning
Initiator: pTang1001001sos (Mark Nau)
1st Judge: Dante (Ashley Ponsoll) (failed to respond to CFJ)
2nd Judge: Mohammed (selected Apr 29 1996)
Judgement: UNDECIDED
3rd Judge: snowgod (Phil Ackley) (failed to respond)
4th Judge: fon (selected May 4 1996)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

As of the confirmation of Robert Sevin's claim to have satisfied the winning condition, the following should happen:

R110 is interpreted as ending the game of Ackanomic once a winner is declared.
A new game of Ackanomic is started by mutual consent of several people, with the current Rules as the starting set of Rules.
All Players of this new game shall be considered to be new Players of that game, with the reasonable assumption made each wishes to retain his old name.
As a consequence of being a new Player, each Player in the new game shall own A$100 and 100PFBonds in his own name, shall have no points, and shall belong to no Parties.
As well, all Offices are vacant, with the exception of the Speaker, which is held by Mitchell Harding. In accordance with the Rules, he takes an Acting role in all Functional Offices, and as Appointer.
There are no Proposals pending in the new game, and the first Proposal shall be numbered 301, in accordance with R487 of the starting set.

I'm unsure what side of this I fall on. I just want to have a resolution.

Dante failed to respond to the following. I was selected once again. I judged Undecided because I think I've been getting far too many judgements lately (I'll send the judge selection script to anyone who likes to debug; I swear I've looked at it until my eyes ring green and blue and don't see anything wrong.)

I judge it false.
Even if I judged it true, it has become moot, and anyway it only says what "should" happen not what does happen.

Call For Judgement 156 - Thu Apr 25 1:00pm CDT 1996
One for "all"
Initiator: Dr McSpong (Julian Richardson)
Judge: Tera Ypsilon (Martijn Faassen) (failed to respond to CFJ)
New Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected April 29 1996)
Judgement: False

Statement:

I contend that in the following sentence of rule 508:

"The players that are also Justices (should the position exist) that is, members of the Supreme Court, have the following powers, provided all agree to use it and how to use it, on the one instance."

the word "all" means "all players", not "all justices".

Call For Judgement 157 - Thu Apr 25 1:30pm CDT 1996
End of Game
Initiator: ThinMan (John Bollinger)
1st Judge: Spammy (failed to respond to CFJ)
2nd Judge: SnafuMoose (Stephen F Roberts) (selected April 29 1996)
Judgement: TRUE
Appealed by: Malenkai and Mohammed to the Supreme Court
Supreme Court's Judgement: FALSE

Complaint:

Robert Sevin has won the game, thereby ending it.

By invoking R423, Robert Sevin became the first player to legally obtain 257 points, thus by R 422 he is the winner. Rules 110 and 219 both imply that winning the game coincides with the end of the game, though they do not say so specifically. Moreover, it is the usual interpretation of winning a game that such an event either ends the game or is determined at the end of the game. The rules need not, indeed cannot, explicitly state the meaning and usage of every word with which they are written, so normal usage must govern in situations where the terms used in the rules are not explicitly defined.

The AOJ that claims to nullify Robert Sevin's invocation of R423 is not an issue, for if winning the game ends it then the rules ceased to be in effect as soon as Robert Sevin achieved a score of exactly 257 points. The Supreme Court did not exist at the time that the person known among us as Malenkai attempted to issue an AOJ, and his announcement was not binding and had no effect.

I now note that if the game is ended, then we are no longer bound by the rules with regard to modifying the document that formed the last valid rule set of the game of Ackanomic. Dr McSpong (Julian Richardson) has made a good start at recommending starting conditions for a new game of Ackanomic. I suggest that we come to a group decision on such conditions and start a new game under them.

I realize that this CFJ is somewhat redundant with Robert Sevin's, but I worry that technical problems with Mr. Sevin's CFJ may be problematic. I also realize that if the game is over then the judgement on this CFJ is not binding in any way; however, any who think the game is not over must accept a judgement of TRUE to end the game, and those who think the game is over may voluntarily accept a judgement of false. Indeed, those who think the game over, including myself, continue to act as if the rules were still in effect until the central question in this CFJ is settled.

1...Clear rules need to be crafted to deal with this! (although this is a much beaten horse)...

2...I was prepared to rule false on this, in deference to CFJ 158 which was filed before I took this assignment, however, in re-reading the briefs filed with the CFJ, I took to re-examining the ruleset.

3...I feel that the only relevant rule I can find to cover the situation is rule 110. (not rule 219 as ThinMan notes).

from rule 110:
"...The winner of the last game shall become the new Speaker for the next game,..."

4...While the exact definition of "last" as in "last game" is not precisely clear, I can see no other interpretation than that what we just has was the "last" game, and that we need to now have a next game.

5...Therefore, this CFJ is TRUE. Robert Sevin won the game at the exact moment that his score reached 257. And the game ended at that moment and a new one must start with him as Speaker.

6...Since the game is now over as per this judgement, no further CFJs, proposals, or other official activity is valid as of the time this judgement is filed, until the next game starts. Existing CFJs that were filed after the end of the game, but before this one was filed are declared void, since the game was no longer in place. As soon as this CFJ is filed, the game retroactively ends.

7...The only legal official action allowed is restarting the game.

8...Now a further twist in this ruling. The rules do not specifically say what to do with the rules themselves. Since going on to the "next game" implies starting the game, this must imply that the rules must be reset to match the rules as they were when we started this game.

TRUE

Preliminary Justification:

The Court has been made aware of debate as to whether it is even lawful to consider an appeal of this CFJ, given that its verdict indicates that the game has ended, thus their being no game in which to legally appeal it.

The Court must consider the following:

1) CFJ 113 establishes "existing game custom" for a grace period to appeal significant game actions which otherwise might not be possible given the nature of the significant game action. This game custom is silent as to the duration of such grace period, but the Court feels it is still within the time limit of the grace period established by this custom.

2) CFJ 158 establishes the truth of the following statement: "The declaration of a "winner" does not end the game." This verdict is in exact opposition of an important component of the verdict of CFJ 157. Therefore the veracity of CFJ 157, in light of the pre-existing verdict from CFJ 158, is suspect, and must come under scrutiny as being made unlawfully. Additionally, the Court knows of no pending appeals of CFJ 158, but of 2 of CFJ 157.

The Court then finds that it is lawful to hear this appeal of CFJ 157.

Reasoning:

Firstly, only points 3, 4, and 5, of SnafuMoose's verdict will be considered. The Court finds points 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8 irrelevant in attempting to find a verdict, and furthermore finds their attempt to set game custom and/or legislative policy via a CFJ bordering on abuse of what is allowed in a CFJ.

The salient points, derived from both ThinMan's and SnafuMoose's reasoning, are the following:

1) "Moreover, it is the usual interpretation of winning a game that such an event either ends the game or is determined at the end of the game. The rules need not, indeed cannot, explicitly state the meaning and usage of every word with which they are written, so normal usage must govern in situations where the terms used in the rules are not explicitly defined."

2) "Robert Sevin won the game at the exact moment that his score reached 257. And the game ended at that moment [...]"

3) "Rules 110 and 219 both imply that winning the game coincides with the end of the game, though they do not say so specifically."

The Court takes each in turn:

1) The second statement of 1) is indeed true, but one must look at the first statement. Specifically, what is the scope of "usual interpretation"? American Games? Card Games? All Games? Tennis? Auto Racing? Nomic? Depending which scope you pick, you get a different answer. If the scope is "All Games", the statement is most likely true. If the scope is Nomics (both FTF or TCP/IP based) the statement is most likely false. All other scopes listed above are irrelevant. The Court finds interpretation within a Nomic scope more relevant; but even if it didn't, it would still find the first statement unsatisfactory and thus not have much value towards delivering a verdict.

2) Clearly there is game custom to contradict this. I cite CFJ 113 and CFJ 153, one called by the winner-apparent, after a win has been declared. Statement 2) is FALSE vis-a-vis this growing body of game custom.

3) Indeed they do "though they do not say so specifically." But Robert Sevin has not yet won, so it doesn't really matter what they say. Even if we were to grant that Robert Sevin has won, CFJ 158 as already found via other law, and now [CFJ 158 as] "game custom" that states otherwise (qv CFJ 158). Unless CFJ 158 is appealed, the Court cannot comment on its truth, and thus must assume it is true.

The Court finds the above arguments by ThinMan and SnafuMoose wholly unsatisfactory, and, given that CFJ 158 already existed at the time of this verdict, must find a verdict of FALSE, thus overturning CFJ 157.

FALSE

By R569, the original judge must be fined 1 to 10 points. The Justices impose a 1 point penalty for SnafuMoose.

Call For Judgement 158 - Thu Apr 25 7:30pm CDT 1996
Winning and game continuity
Initiator: The Governor (Dan Marsh)
Judge: Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

The declaration of a "winner" does not end the game.

1. Check the dictionary. Neither Webster's nor Funk & Wagnall's say that one can "win" only at the end of a game. I'm sure that other dictionaries would concur in this, but I have no others to check. I contend that any other definition of "win" or "winning" (the two words in the appropriate rules without formal definitions) must refer to a source more authoritative than these, two of the three most authoritative dictionaries of the English language.

2. Rule 422 contains the FORMAL DEFINITION of "winner," which is what Robert Sevin became when he achieved 257 points. The FORMAL DEFINITION in Rule 422 has precedence over ANY OTHER definition, which is to say that for the purpose of the game NO other definition exists. Since NO RULE declares the end of the game once there exists a "winner," I maintain that my statement must be judged "TRUE."

Nowhere in the rules is it stated that winning the game ends the game. Therefore, I judge this CFJ True.

Call For Judgement 159 - Mon Apr 29 2:00pm CDT 1996
More filibustering
Initiator: Malenkai (Randy Hall)
Judge: ThinMan (John Bollinger)
Judgement: False

Statement:

Proposal 668, should it pass, would simply initiate the process of petitioning the players for the removal of Supreme Court Justice Malenkai from that office by R507, and in no way shall actual passage of Proposal 668, in and of itself, actually remove Malenkai from the seat of Supreme Court Justice.

Reasoning:
The language of R507 and P668 are clear, and necessitate a verdict of TRUE. No further reasoning is necessary. I provide the text of P668 for reference:

"According to R507, I call for a vote to remove Malenkai from the Supreme Court."

Proposal 668 would not be a valid rule change if adopted. It neither creates a new mutable rule, nor amends an existing mutable rule, nor transmutes a rule. Should it pass, therefore, it cannot have the effect of initiating a process of petitioning the players for the removal of Malenkai from the Supreme Court.

This does not answer the related question of whether the method ThinMan attempted to use for the recall petition is endorsed by the rules, which is also in doubt. Nevertheless, the overall statement upon which judgement was called is false regardless of the truth value of the second part.

Call For Judgement 160 - Mon Apr 29 2:00pm CDT 1996
Strongarm Tactics (or vote Yes for P 665 and P 666)
Initiator: Malenkai (Randy Hall)
Judge: mr cwm (Eric Murray)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

By R219 I claim a win by paradox, pending a TRUE verdict on the following CFJ.

Further play is impossible, because there is confusion as to what people's scores should be, and you cannot play the game without knowing people's scores, and since you cannot play the game, there is no legal way to resolve the confusion of what people's scores should be.

Clearly the Judge will see the truth of the statement. If not, perhaps the Supreme Court, by R569, could help enlighten the Judge to its truth.

Players' scores may or may not be confused, but there is no requirement that it be clear what the scores should be for play to continue. There may be requirements that certain Officers do certain things with the scores, and their failure, if any, to do so may be a violation of the Rules, but these failures, should any exist, may be dealt with through the Rules, and certainly do not require the cessation of play. Play thus continuing, confusion in scores may, indeed, be legally resolved, prompting my verdict of FALSE.

I submit this Judgement in voluntary compliance with what many people believe to be the Rules of Ackanomic.

Go