CALL FOR JUDGEMENT ARCHIVE (206-220)

Call For Judgement 206 - Sun, 30 Jun 1996 13:16 -0400
Subject: Immutable Rules II
Initiator: Calvin N Hobbes
Judge: Robin Hood (selected Jun 29, 1996, 21:15h New York Time)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

It is possible to change the text of immutable rules by any means a player would like to use, so long as that mean is not a proposal.
Initiator's Comments:
[no additional material was provided by the initiator - CotC]
Judge's Comments:
Rule 115 says rules may only be changed when explicitly or implicitly permitted.
Rule 491 does not limit itself to proposals and explicitly lists all possible categories of rule changes.
The statement contradicts rule 491.
No rule of higher priority than 491 overrules it.
So by 115 and 491 I must rule FALSE

Call For Judgement 207 - Thu, 4 Jul 1996 01:15 +0000
Subject: Blue Cross
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: this is not a name (selected Jun 30, 1996, 00:15h New York Time)
Judgement: UNDECIDED at Tue, 02 Jul 1996 21:05 -0400
Appealed to the Supreme Court by Malenkai at Wed, 03 Jul 1996 18:36 -0400
Supreme Court's Judgement: False

Statement:

If a player who has a Blue Cross leaves the game, they will have a Blue Cross when they rejoin the game.
Initiator's Comments:
[no additional material was provided by the initiator - CotC]
Judge's Comments:
Rule 859 prohibits a player from leaving, rejoining and claiming points from an old cycle. But it does not address the question of entities such as the Blue Cross.

Rules 362 and 691, which provide for special cases in which a player may be removed from the game but may rejoin with its old points, do not apply either. (In accordance with game custom, I interpret "score" to mean points, not artifacts. "Score" is not satisfactorily defined in the rules.)

Rule 549/1 reads, in part: 

>Blue Crosses, Silver Stripes, and Gold Stripes shall only be
>created and destroyed as specified by the Rules. They may only be
>owned by players, and may not be obtained except as specified by
>the Rules. Ownership of Blue Crosses, Silver Stripes, and Gold
>Stripes may not be transf<3F-3F-3dyyyyyyyyyyyyy3C8377/377/3d$X{Y{Z{[{\{]{^{_{`{a{b{c{h{G|4} ^3} ^3d`$$$$$$$$$$$$$-3U3U3dd4O3O3dfghio4xQ<3xQ<3dN|4C33C33dz%n3n3n3dVdefghijklmnopne can be reached here.
Supreme Court's Comments:
The Supreme Court also refers the interested reader to /dev/joe's Judgement 209.

The Supreme Court notes that Malenkai was awarded a Blue Cross "as recognition of merit and services to Ackanomic". The Supreme Court recognises that Malenkai fully deserved this great award.

From R549: 

> Blue Crosses, Silver Stripes, and Gold Stripes shall only be created
> and destroyed as specified by the Rules. They may only be owned by
> players, and may not be obtained except as specified by the Rules.
As Blue Crosses may only be owned by players, when a player leaves the game they cannot continue to own a Blue Cross.

The Blue Cross left behind is not destroyed, and it would seem common-sense that a Blue Cross should be returned to it's former owner when and if that player returns to the game.

However, R549 says that Blue Crosses may only be obtained as specified by the rules. Unfortunately, no rule says that Blue Crosses should be returned to their former owners who rejoin the game after a period of absence.

It is with a heavy heart that the Supreme Court returns a verdict of false. The Supreme Court notes that the Blue Cross that was created especially for Malenkai is currently stored in the Treasury, where it will come to no harm. The Supreme Court looks forward to the day when a proposal will return this medal to it's rightful owner.

Penalty to original judge:
Penalty: this is not a name is fined 1 point.

Call For Judgement 208 - Fri, 05 Jul 1996 14:48 -0400
Subject: Game custom of time
Initiator: pTang1001001sos
Judge: snowgod (selected Jul 1, 1996, 21:15h New York Time)
Judgement: false

Statement:

When the Rules do not specify a time period for a Player to perform a given action, Ackanomic game custom dictates that the Player should attempt in good faith to carry outc?3Y3Y3d 93ɼ3ɼ3d !3.3.3dlKLMNOPQRSTUVW\3}oe3}oe3duuvvv v v/3oe3oe3d##6333d  Э$333dZ9:;<=>?@ABCDEN3Y3Y3dt ask the player if he wishes to continue playing the game [...]"
Judge's Comments:
Since the rules do not dictate that a game action is to be performed "as soon as feasable" and in fact, do not dictate any time restrictions at all, I am returning a judgement of False on this CFJ. In pTang1001001sos specific example, Malenkai would be in the right, so long as he does eventually perform the duties described in R362 (though eventually could be anywhere from tomorrow to next year, so long as it gets done sometime.)

Call For Judgement 209 - Tue, 02 Jul 1996 21:09 -0400
Subject: Blue Cross Paradox
Initiator: this is not a name
Judge: /dev/joe (selected Jul 2, 1996, 00:25h New York Time)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The legality action of destroying a Blue Cross that belongs to a player who leaves the game cannot be determined with finality; this action appears equally legal and illegal; and this constitutes a win by paradox.
Initiator's Comments:
Rule 549/1 reads, in part: 
>Blue Crosses, Silver Stripes, and Gold Stripes shall only be
>created and destroyed as specified by the Rules. They may only be
>owned by players, and may not be obtained except as specified by
>the Rules. Ownership of Blue Crosses, Silver Stripes, and Gold
>Stripes may not be transferred between players.
Say Player X has a Blue Cross. If X decides to leave the game, X's Blue Cross must be destroyed, because a Blue Cross may only be owned by a player and X is no longer a player once e leaves the game. Since the ownership of the Blue Cross may not be transferred, and no other entity may own a Blue Cross, the Blue Cross must be either destroyed or transferred to another entity.

However, Rule 549 states that Blue Crosses shall only be destroyed as specified by the rules. The rules do not specify any circumstances under which a Blue Cross may be destroyed. Thus the disposition of the Blue Cross when a player who possesses one leaves the game cannot be determined with finality.

I claim a win by paradox according to rule 219.

Judge's Comments:
First, I note that no rule says an entity owned by a player is destroyed when that player leaves the game.

Since Rule 549 states that Blue Crosses may not be destroyed, they must not be destroyed when their owner ceases to be a player. It also says that ownership of Blue Crosses may not be transferred between players, and they may only be owned by players. There is exactly one way for all this to be satisfied, and that is that they become unowned when a player who owns one leaves the game.

The action of destroying a Blue Cross owned by a player who leaves the game is thus determined to be illegal, and the statement in this CFJ is therefore false.

Note: The fact that such things are generally deleted from the Registrar's report when a player leaves the game does not mean that they are destroyed. The Registrar is only required to keep track of such things when players hold them.

Call For Judgement 210 - Mon, 08 Jul 1996 18:36 -0400
Subject: Recycled players
Initiator: pTang1001001sos
Judge: mr cwm (selected Jul 2, 1996, 21:36h New York Time)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The term "new player" used in the rules applies only to those players who have never before been a player of Ackanomic; it excludes returning players.
Initiator's Comments:
This will clear up a number of things about my current game position. I don't necessarily think that I am entitled to the money and PFBonds and land given to new players. On the other hand, R570 uses "new player" in a sense that seems to include returning players. (Otherwise, can I pick Fon_Ahimnorsty as my name?)
Judge's Comments:
R570 implies that returning players are new ("A new player may not choose the name of a previous player, unless they are the player who held that name previously"). No other rule relating to new players makes a stronger statement either way. Returning players, then, seem to be a sub-class of new players, prompting a decision of FALSE.

Call For Judgement 211 - Wed, 10 Jul 1996 00:39:48 +0000
Subject: Oh no, not more Fruit Juice!
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: /dev/joe (selected Jul 2, 1996, 22:45h New York Time)
Judgement: False
Appealed to the supreme court by Malenkai at Wed, 03 Jul 1996 20:05 -0400
Appeal Judgement: False

Statement:

The legality of Malenkai making Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice cannot be determined with finality.
Initiator's Comments:
Malenkai's claim: By R219, I claim a win by paradox pending a verdict of TRUE on the following CFJ:

The legality of Malenkai making Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice cannot be determined with finality.

The following has occurred:

1) ThinMan has changed n to 6, which happened to be his score, and thus has won by R 110.

2) Upon that occurring, R 666 applied, because winning the game applies the same process as winning the cycle (qv R 904).

3) At that point, all scores were set to 0 (qv R 666)

4) Then pTang1001001sos changed n to every integer between -200 and 200, causing everyone to win, as everyone's score was in that range (0). Thus everyone has won, invoking R 666 for every player.

The problem arises in that we do not know the order in which R 666 was invoked with respect to the players, and hence we do not, indeed cannot, know who happens to possess the Right-Handed Grapefruit. Note that not everyone can have one, as R 867 is rather explicit about the quantity of such fruit:

> Only one may exist at any time.

(Nor can such fruit be divided amongst the winners, as R 867 is rather explicit about the ways such entities may be manipulated (see below))

Thus it cannot be determined with finality whether Malenkai has the Right-Handed Grapefruit. Since that is the case, it cannot be determined whether it is legal for him to make the Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice. Note that there is no *other* legal way to make such Juice, R 867 is again clear: 

> (a) Chartreuse Goose Eggs, Right-Handed Grapefruits, and
> Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice may only be created, destroyed, or
> manipulated as the Rules specify.
The only way the rules specify to make (manipulate/create) the Juice is R 867, and that requires a RHG, which we cannot determine if Malenkai has.

Of course, if any of the premises of this argument, namely 1-4 above, are shown FALSE, this CFJ must be judged FALSE. Otherwise, it must be judged TRUE.

Judge's Comments:
If part 1 of the reasoning is incorrect, i.e., if setting n to your score does not result in you winning the game, then nobody else won from pTang's action, either, and Malenkai cannot make RHG Juice.

If part 1 of the reasoning is correct, then it follows that parts 2, 3, and 4 have also occurred. Malenkai's logic in these steps is unarguable. Indeed, it has been declared that all players won the game, simultaneously. By rule 904, all players have won the cycle.

Now what remains to be determined is what rule 666 does.

Rule 666 begins: "Whenever there is a winner declared, the following process shall be conducted:"

The phrase "Whenever there is a winner declared" seems ambiguous in the case when more than one player wins simultaneously. It could mean any of:
(a) 666a-m isn't done at all, because it only occurs when _a_ (precisely one) winner is declared.
(b) 666a-m is done once, during which time all players are considered winners (i.e., at any time one or more winners are declared)
(c) 666a-m is done many times simultaneously, once for each player declared to be a winner

In this situation, by rule 215, I should consider game custom and the spirit of the game. We've never had multiple winners at the same time, so there is no custom for that, but let's consider other events occurring in multiples, simultaneously.

In rule 612, part (vi) begins: "Whenever a Functional Office has a vacant Seat, the Appointer shall conduct a Nomination for that Seat." We've had multiple functional offices vacant before, and the appointer has conducted multiple nominations, simultaneously, for those offices.

Rule 665 says "Whenever the Rules specify that a Player should receive A$, and do not indicate where those A$ should come from, they shall come from the Treasury." Rule 565 (which gives out dividends on PF bonds) doesn't say where the A$ players get comes from, so this part of rule 665 is in effect in these cases, and generally multiple players get A$ simultaneously in these cases, and all the A$ were simultaneously taken from the treasury.

Given this game custom, I judge interpretation (c) to be the correct one.

Note that there should not be any reason for one invocation of the rule to occur faster or slower than any other, so in the spirit of the game, I interpret all 23 invocations of each step to happen simultaneously.

So what happens when the procedure in Rule 666 parts a-m is carried out, several times, simultaneously?

a) Ackanomic play is suspended.

It doesn't matter if you do this once, or 23 times together, it has the same result.

b) All Chartreuse Goose Eggs and Right-Handed Grapefruit are eliminated.

Ditto here. Now there are no CGE's or RHG's.

c) The winner is declared winner of the cycle, and given a Right-Handed Grapefruit, should such an entity be defined by the Rules.

OK, this claims to give each winner a RHG. This part is in conflict with rule 867 which says there may be only one RHG at any time, but rule 666 has precedence, by the numerical method, since neither claims precedence. Therefore, everybody gets a RHG.

d) All players who have zero or fewer points are given a Chartreuse Goose Egg, should such an entity be defined by the Rules.

_Each_ invocation of the rule gives _each_ player a CGE. Now everybody has 23 CGE's. I hope an egg fight doesn't start. ;-)

e) 20% (round down) of each Player's A$ balance is transferred to the Treasury. The winner shall pay only 10% (round down), however.

Oops. Each player loses 20% (rounded down) of their A$ balance 22 times simultaneously, as well as 10% rounded down once. If no rounding occurred, this is 450% of their A$ balance. Unless somebody had so little A$ that 20% rounded down was zero, this just put everybody into debt. See rule 511.

f) In every instance where a Player owns Bonds issued in another Player's name, 25% (round up) of such Bonds will revert back to the Player in whose name the Bonds were issued.

All players get all their own bonds back.

g) Each Player is awarded A$ equal to his point total, not to exceed the number of points required to win.

This is zero. Nothing happens.

h) Bond payments are held in suspension.
i) All Players' points are set to zero.
j) Bond payments are reinstituted and a new two-week bond cycle begins.

Nothing happens here either.

k) The game cycle number is incremented.

The game cycle number is incremented 23 times. ThinMan's win was in cycle 5, so everybody won cycle 6, and then this brings us up to cycle 29.

m) Ackanomic play resumes.

And so it does. And in this case, Malenkai does in fact gave a RHG, so he can make RHG Juice.

All that is left to be determined is whether ThinMan won the game. Whether he did or didn't doesn't matter, as long as it can be decided. I believe that he didn't, because R110 says:

"The state of affairs that constitutes winning the game may not be changed from achieving n points to any other state of affairs."
The state of affairs that constituted winning the game was having exactly 100 points when the game started, and later it was having exactly 257 points, and finally it became having The Magic Number of points. It was never "achieving n points" so, in my opinion, that sentence of R110 has never had an effect on the game.

Regardless, rule 110 is not written in such a way that it cannot be determined with finality whether ThinMan has won. Given that this can be determined, whether Malenkai could have made RHG Juice can be determined, as above.

Appealer's Comments:
The key to /dev/joe's argument is a precedence argument. That argument is fallacious. In the absence of that argument, my original reasoning holds, indicating a verdict of TRUE.

R 666 regulates the *distribution* of Grapefruit. That is to say, it takes any extant Grapefruit and transfers them. R 867 regulates the *quantity* of Grapefruit in the game. That is to say, it instantiates Grapefruit. Thus, simply, there is no precedence conflict. Qv CFJ 153 for a precedent :) for invalidating this type of fallacious precedence argument.

>From R 666:

c) The winner is declared winner of the cycle, and given a Right-Handed Grapefruit, should such an entity be defined by the Rules.

Note the word "given". /dev/joe's argument claims to allow "given" to also create. My Websters, under "give" is too long to quote here, but Webster indicates a translation of "transfer" for tangible objects. I urge the Court to look it up. In no way can this clause *create* Grapefruit, thus invalidating the precedence argument.

Supreme Court's Comments: 
>From R666:

> B) All Chartreuse Goose Eggs and Right-Handed Grapefruit are
> eliminated.

> c) The winner is declared winner of the cycle, and given
> a Right-Handed Grapefruit, should such an entity be defined by the
> Rules.
Right-Handed Grapefruit _are_ defined by the rules, in Rule 867. However, _creation_ of Right-Handed Grapefruit is not defined anywhere in the rules. Thus there are no Right-Handed Grapefruit to give out, and Malenkai cannot make Right-Handed Grapefruit juice.

Hence a verdict of FALSE is recorded, concurring with the original verdict.

The Supreme Court

Additional material:

In Justice Bascule's opinion, this has been the hardest appeal to judge to come before the Supreme Court in his time as Justice. In particular, two CFJs, 214 and 216, remain unjudged, the verdicts of which could have affected the reasoning behind this verdict (if the verdict of 214 is false, or 216 true, then either of these verdicts could be cited as reasoning for a verdict of false on this appeal).

The implications of the Supreme Court's reasoning are interesting; is this a paradox? Or, since all players should obey the rules, and all duties not assigned to an officer fall to the Speaker, is the Speaker breaking the rules in failing to give out Right-Handed Grapefruit?

In the light of these problems, the Supreme Court is taking the unprecedented step of saying that it is prepared to reconsider this verdict _without_ the normal appeal process. If any reasoning contradicting this appeal verdict is posted to the public forum, and if the Supreme Court concurs with the said reasoning, it will issue an Act of Justice to overturn this verdict, removing the need for a player to lose 5 points to have the verdict appealed.

Call For Judgement 212 - Wed, 03 Jul 1996 01:50 -0400
Subject: Interpreting R 111
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected Jul 2, 1996, 23:14h New York Time)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

A player who invokes R 111 does not necessarily quit the game; they merely have the option of ceasing to play, or losing.
Initiator's Comments:
Rule 111 is rather clear on the matter: 
> A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue
> to play or incur a game penalty.
Certainly they can lose: They may "forfeit the game rather than incur a game penalty". This means you forfeit your right to win (ie, lose), in exchange for incurring the game penalty.

Certainly they can cease to play: They may "forfeit the game rather than continue to play", the key phrase being "continue to play". Note that forfeit still means to lose, but you are invoking your right to not play, so the fact that you are losing doesn't really matter.

Judge's Comments:
Since R111 says the player "forfeits" the game, then this cannot be restricted in meaning to simply "quitting" although it does have (imply) that as one of its options. Hence it is true it does not _necessarily_ make a player quit.

Call For Judgement 213 - Fri, 05 Jul 1996 14:56 -0400
Subject: R 362's validity
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: ThinMan (selected Jul 2, 1996, 23:45h New York Time)
Judgement: false

Statement:

R 362 is wholly void and without effect.
Initiator's Comments:
R 362 (mutable) reads, in part: 
> If any player does not vote or communicate publically with all of the
> Ackanomic players for a time period of one week, and this fact is
> pointed out to the Speaker by any player (other than the said player),
> then the Speaker must send a message to the player who has been absent.
> [...]
This rule applies to vacationing players (qv CFJ 198). Furthermore, this rule requires that the Speaker send a message to vacationing players asking them if they want to remain in the game, if said vacationing players have not communicated or voted within a week, and a player requests that the Speaker do so.

Let the term Speaker mean Speaker or Acting Speaker, it matters not for the purposes of discussion, it is the same individual.

In the "judgement" of the current Speaker, being asked to do the work required by this rule (not the same as being asked by the player to *start* the work) is a "penalty worse than losing, in the Speaker's judgement to incur it". The current Speaker has put forth rationale as to why that is such, but that matters not for this argument. All that matters is the Speaker's "judgement" that the quoted phrase above is true. Thus R 362 is forcing a "penalty worse than losing, in the Speaker's judgement to incur it", upon the Speaker.

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.
Thus R 362 imposes a penalty worse than losing, in the Judgement of the Speaker to incur it, and R 111 prohibits such imposition.

This is an Immutable/Mutable inconsistency. I quote from R 108, in part: 

> Mutable rules that are inconsistent in some way with some immutable
> rule (except by proposing to transmute it) are wholly void and
> without effect.
Thus R 362 is "wholly void and without effect". A verdict of TRUE is necessary.
Judge's Comments:
1) Even if I accept the rest of Malenkai's argument, his claim that R 108 applies to R 362 is valid only if the Speaker considers the requirements of R 362 to be "a penalty worse than losing." Malenkai was Speaker at the time he submitted this CFJ, and he did feel that way. However, it is not the case, in my opinion, that R 362 is always void an without effect, even if it is in some circumstances. If the statement I am judging were conditional, then it would be much stronger.

2) More importantly, however, I do not interpret the requirements of Rule 362 as a penalty. In my opinion, in the context of R 111 a penalty is an adverse requirement incurred as a result of an offense or other illegal action.
The requirements of R 362 are part of the normal duties of the Speaker, not the result of any Rule violation, and therefore do not constitute a penalty. I acknowledge that the Speaker may find those requirements odious, but they are not made void by R 108.

3) As I see no other grounds on which R 362 could be declared "wholly void and without effect," I see no other possible judgement than FALSE.

Call For Judgement 214 - Sun, 14 Jul 1996 01:08 -0400
Subject: ThinMan's winning
Initiator: /dev/joe
Judge: De'ghew (selected Jul 2, 1996, 23:49h New York Time) (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (declined to judge)
3rd Judge: Mohammed (selected Jul 8, 1996, 00:09h New York Time) (deadbeat judge)
4th Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected Jul 11, 1996, 01:39h New York Time)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

When ThinMan set n to 6, he won the game.
Initiator's Comments:
I don't care either way, but it's rather important to know.
Judge's Comments:
R110
The state of affairs that constitutes winning the game may not be changed from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. However, the magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed, and rules that establish a winner when play cannot be continued may be enacted and (while mutable) be amended or repealed.

This rule defines that the state of winning can't be changed from achieving n number of points.
n is never explicitly defined, therefore, n by itself has no value, and this rule does not determine the number of points necessary to win. It defines a a template for defining a rule that would define the number of points to win, it might have well been rephrased "The state of affairs that constitutes winning the game may not be changed from achieving a certain number of points to any other state of affairs." This statement is equivalent to the statement in the rule. I doubt anybody could claim to assign a value to 'certain'.

One might argue that the second sentence of the rule implies that n can be defined. One would be mistaken. The second simply continues to use the same terminology that has been defined in the original template.

The rule that fills the template is R422, and as long as R110 remains as it is, only by changing R422, or amending it, or adding other rules which may affect the state of affair of winning, that is the rule that determines the number of points required to win.

Call For Judgement 215 - Sun, 14 Jul 1996 01:21 -0400
Subject: Justice Lives on
Initiator: mr cwm
Judge: Brinjal (selected at 1105h EDT on 3 Jul 1996) (did not respond)
2nd Judge: this is not a name (selected at 19:33h New York Time on 11 Jul 1996)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

A second Judge must be selected for CFJ 201.
Initiator's Comments:
The first judge selected for CFJ 201 refused appointment. According to R588, the Officer assigned to select judges must select a further, second in this case, judge. The fact that the first selected judge explained his refusal by claiming CFJ 201 was invalid under R589 is irrelevant - no provision is made in R588 for particular explanations for refusal preventing further selection.
Judge's Comments:
A judge cannot simply disregard a CFJ because e believes that it does not follow the rules for the form in which a CFJ must be submitted. R588 is clear on this point. In the court's opinion, if a CFJ is not in the proper form, the judge should return a judgement of false, which can then be appealed to the Supreme Court if necessary.

Call For Judgement 216 - Sun, 14 Jul 1996 01:10 -0400
Subject: Fat Lady
Initiator: Mark Nau
Judge: ThinMan (selected at 2035h CDT on 4 July 1996) (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: Kelly Martin (selected on 5 Jul, 1996, 15:25h New York Time) (failed to respond)
3rd Judge: snowgod (selected on 9 Jul, 1996, 18:56h New York Time) (declined to judge)
4th Judge: Mohammed (selected on 9 Jul, 1996, 19:19h New York Time) (quit the game)
5th Judge: Techno (selected on 13 Jul, 1996, 13:40h New York Time)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The argument below, after the header "Reasoning:" and between the quote marks, is sound and shall be entered into game custom.

Reasoning :
"
R790 states: 

>Furthermore, the game, or a cycle of the game, cannot be over until the
>Fat Lady sings.
What does this mean?

I submit that it means the cycle number cannot be incremented. The action of incrementing the cycle number would very strongly imply the end of the previous cycle. I know of no other reference to what constitutes a cycle end in the Rules.

Here's what happened:
1) ThinMan changed n to 6, and claimed a win of the game. This win claim was valid.
2) At this point, R666 triggered, executing clauses (a) through (j), and got hung up before executing clause (k), waiting for the Fat Lady to sing.
3) Clause (a) of R666 says "Ackanomic play is suspended". By CFJ 193, only those activities which are analogous to "setting up a chess board" are valid during this period. I submit that my changing of n does not qualify.
4) I tried to change n. This did not happen, as it is an unacceptable action.
5) Malenkai stated that the Fat Lady is singing. I submit that this is a "setting up" activity, as it triggers the change in cycle number.
6) R666 executes clause (k), incrementing the cycle number, then (m), resuming Ackanomic play.
"

Initiator's Comments:
[none]
1st Judge's Comments:
I must respectfully decline to judge CFJ 216, for a judgement of true would declare, among other things, that my recent win claim was valid. I am, therefore, not an impartial judge for this CFJ.
5th Judge's Comments:
[none]

Call For Judgement 217 - Tue, 9 Jul 1996 22:43 +0000
Subject: Burning the Witch in the Afterlife
Initiator: snowgod
Judge: Robin Hood (selected Jul 5, 1996, 15:37h New York Time)
Judgement: FALSE

Appealed to the Supreme Court by Snowgod
Appeal Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

An player in the Ackanomic Afterlife cannot be burned as a heretic.
Initiator's Comments:
To set fire to a witch in the Afterlife, another player would have to enter the afterlife to set said witch aflame.

R767 states that "A player that has 'entered' this palace can do so as per another rule, not directly of his own decision." Since no player can enter the afterlife except as described in the rules, and currently the only way to get into the afterlife is to commit heresy, a player in the afterlife cannot be burned.

The penalties described in "Ackanomic Middle Ages" state that they take effect only after a player is burned. Hence, regardless of the outcome of the witch hunt against me, the penalties cannot be applied.

Judge's Comments: 
> To set fire to a witch in the Afterlife, another player would have to enter
> the afterlife to set said witch aflame.
Firstly this is not true so snowgod's reasoning is invalid. No rule prohibits players throwing incendiary bombs into the afterlife. Rule 729 says that a simple majority shall determine if the heretic has burned, but does not mention a method. When a majority can create land by fiat it would not be unreasonable for them to be able to ignite heretics by willpower alone.

[rest of snowgod's reasoning cut]

However I have to act only on the statement [ the court notes that 589 is misphrased, saying 'required only to consider' the statement and rules literally means they need only be considered not acted upon which is inconsistent with an earlier rule] Rule 767 does not claim precedence over 729 but merely provides a definition a a term left undescribed within 729. Therefore a player within the Ackanomic Afterlife can be burned as an heretic but will immediately revive.

Appealer's Comments:
The Afterlife is a Classy Palace. A "classy" palace is of considerable size, and the act of firebombing it would not lead to the burning of the witch inside, because there are many places (and per R115 flame resistant places) to hide inside of such a large abode.

Furthermore the ability to create land by fiat is a legislative act, where the ability to set fire to a witch by willpower (or any other method) alone is an act that is beyond the scope of existing legislation. May the ackanomic afterlife protect me, the earth is round.

Supreme Court's Comments:
While the first part of Snowgod's reasoning is entirely correct, the Supreme Court cannot concur with the second paragraph. No rule says that ashes cannot be burned again, nor is a mechanism for burning defined by the rules, and it is certain that no rule would allow any Heretic to escape the due process of law.

The Supreme Court congratulates the Witchfinder General on an excellent job of rooting out the Heretics of Ackanomia. These practitioners of the Black Arts, espousing their so-called "progress", threaten the very _fabric_ of Ackanomia, by challenging the Holy Ruleset itself, rule 729 of which categorically states "The Earth is flat". While such dangerous elements remain in our society, no law-abiding citizen can rest! The good people of Ackanomia should redouble their efforts in grassing on their fellow citizens who would destroy the Truth and bring to Ackanomia an age of lawlessness and sorcery.

Verdict:
False.

The Supreme Court does not expect to be frivolously bothered by Heretics in the future.

Call For Judgement 218 -
Subject: Multiple Blue Crosses
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: Bascule (selected Jul 6, 1996, 23:50h New York Time)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

/dev/joe has 2 Blue Crosses
Initiator's Comments:
Malenkai, acting in his capacity as ProConsul, awarded him one for having 20 proposals passed.

ThinMan, acting in his capacity as Senator, awarded him one for having 20 proposals passed.

Therefore he has 2 of them. R 549 is quite clear: 

> Blue Crosses and Silver Stripes are awarded by the President, the
> Proconsul, or a Senator. Each time one is to be awarded, it is created
> for the occasion by the Frobozz Magic Medal Company, Ackanomic Division.
I have both e-mails if the judge requires them for evidence.
Judge's Comments: 
>From R549:
>Once 20 or more proposals submitted by any particular player have
>been accepted, that player shall be awarded a Blue Cross as
>recognition of merit and services to Ackanomic.
A _singular_ Blue Cross is awarded. 
The dodgy paragraph from R549:
>Blue Crosses and Silver Stripes are awarded by the President, the
>Proconsul, or a Senator. Each time one is to be awarded, it is
>created for the occasion by the Frobozz Magic Medal Company,
>Ackanomic Division.
Only one shall be awarded though. Whoever awarded it first did so as per 549, once this happened, R549 did not stipulate that a second could be awarded. 
549 again:
>Blue Crosses, Silver Stripes, and Gold Stripes shall only be created
>and destroyed as specified by the Rules.
So a second could not be created by invoking R115. A verdict of false is required.

Call For Judgement 219 - Mon, 08 Jul 1996 20:41 -0400
Subject: Voidness of R 423
Initiator: Mellon
Judge: snowgod (selected Jul 8, 1996, 18:50h New York Time) (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: pTang1001001sos (selected Jul 8, 1996, 19:40h New York Time)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The proposals 936, 949, 951, 955, and 957 shall be voted on by the players as all other proposals, since rule 423 is "wholly void and without effect".
Initiator's Comments:
R104 states that "All proposals made in the proper way shall be voted on..." I cannot find that the proposals mentioned above was not made in a proper way.

R104 is immutable.

R423 states that votes cast on retracted proposals shall be ignored. This is a contradiction to R104, and R423 is mutable.

R108 says that if there are inconsistencies between mutable and immutable rules the mutable rule is wholly void and without effect.

Judge's Comments:
R423:
"A player may retract their own proposal by making a request to the public forum. The proposal may be retracted only if the results have not been publicly announced. All votes cast on a retracted proposal shall be ignored. The player retracting the proposal shall suffer a 1 point penalty."

My first question: "Is R423 wholly inconsistent with R104?"

I think not. The only explicit consequence of having a Proposal "retracted", according to R423, is that all votes cast on the Proposal shall be ignored. It does not forbid the retracted Proposal from being voted on.

I conclude that we are forced to interpret R423 in the light of the fact that it must not conflict with R104. The only way to do this is by parsing the term "retracted" to mean only what is explicitly stated in R423: for a Proposal to be "retracted" means that votes cast on the Proposal shall be ignored.

A judgement of TRUE seems clear-cut, but I have a reservation that will explain the judgement of FALSE.

The CFJ statement says that the Proposals in question will be voted on by the players "as all other proposals." This vote need not really be conducted "as" all other Proposals. Does the Tabulator have an obligation to process information that e is OBLIGATED to ignore in the same way as information that e must analyze and report on? I think not.

The Rules are silent on the exact procedure used in voting, and so I am reluctant to judge TRUE, because that would give the impression that the Tabulator must use the same voting procedure for retracted Proposals as for non-retracted Proposals. Not only do I think that this is not so, but I think the Rules mandate just the contrary.

It seems as if the Tabulator must accept votes on the retracted Proposals, and yet ignore the votes, and indeed even ignore the fact that any given Player has even voted on one of these Proposals. He should establish a procedure for receiving votes that will be completely ignored.

I want to conclude by putting in the written record my opinion that this is a fine CFJ, particularly given the "newbie" status of the initiating Player.

Call For Judgement 220 - Jul 22, 1996 16:47 EDT
Subject: Closing the polls
Initiator: pTang1001001sos
Judge: Pascal (selected Jul 8, 1996, 21:05h New York Time) (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: De'ghew (selected Jul 11, 1996, 22:04h New York Time)
Judgement: TRUE at Fri, 12 Jul 1996 21:23 -0400
Appealed by Malenkai to the Supreme Court
Supreme Court's Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Each Player gets to vote exactly once during the entire game of Ackanomic.
Initiator's Comments:
Read R390.
Judge's Comments:
R390 states: "Each player has exactly one vote unless otherwise specified by other applicable rules." On its own, this rule would require that each player vote no more than once in the game, or perhaps in the player's lifetime. R390 does defer to rules that specify some other number of votes a player should receive. However, this court can find no such rules. It appears that the rules do not reflect the game custom that players may vote once on each proposal. Since the rules must take precedence over game custom, this court has no choice but to rule this CFJ TRUE.

Aside: As much as I would like to rule this false, I can't find any rules which support such a ruling. If anyone can find such rules, by all means appeal. I should point out, though, that the rules do allow Tammany and possibly other non-player entities to vote more than once. If this verdict sticks, we may turn to Tammany to save us. We may all have to go on vacation, however. :)

Appealer's Comments:
[none]
Supreme Court's Comments:
It is not game custom that players vote once on each proposal, as that could rightly be overridden by R390, if its meaning was as claimed. Rather, it is game custom that the phrase "Each player has exactly one vote" is interpreted to mean that each player has the right to vote once on each proposal or other issue.
Penalty to original judge:
1 point


Go BACK