CALL FOR JUDGEMENT ARCHIVE (326-present)

Call For Judgement 326 - Sat, 28 Dec 1996 01:07:18 -0500
Subject: Proposal 1560
Initiator: snowgod
Judge: /dev/joe (selected Dec 26, 1996, 09:00h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

The rule change described in P1560 in not ambiguous, and is therefore a valid rule change.

R103, Paragraph 3 states:

If an amendment to a rule does not unambiguously describe the amendment to take place, it is not a valid rule change. Rule changes not defined as valid by the rules are invalid.

and P1560 reads:

This is a modest proposal.

Amend R891 By adding the following paragraph between the first and the third:

A newspaper must publish at least one article during each calender month, or it will cease to exist. When this happens, the newspaper is said to have gone belly-up.

The question that must be answered is if the text "Amend R891 By adding the following paragraph between the first and the third:" is ambigous or not. I believe that the intent of the proposal is clear, even if the exact wording isn't.

I quote from R451:

If there is a typographical error in any number in any Ackanomic document, and the intended number can be determined beyond reasonable doubt, then the mis-typed number shall be treated as if it were typed as intended, and be considered a misspelled word with respect to Rule 1022 (with the correct spelling being the intended number).

Clearly this paragraph applies to P1560 and the number three in the the second sentence of the proposal should be treated as if it was "two".

The initiator's reasoning is valid.

Call For Judgement 327 - Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:00:53 -0500
Subject: CFCJ 119
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: ThinMan (selected Jan 17, 1997, 00:13h EST)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The game action labelled as CFCJ 119 which occurred Jan 16, 1997, 21:59, was a Call for Criminal Judgement.

I just need to know about the Court Fee. I would probably judge FALSE, but the TRUE case is much more interesting and I could see that verdict as well. On technical grounds, CFCJ 119 violates R 710, but does that prevent it from coming into existance as a CFCJ? I could see calling a CFCJ on the initiator for breaking the rules :). If it is not a CFCJ, what is it? For the factual record, it was submitted to the CotC labelled as a CFCJ.

Is Loophole Surfing back in Acka?

Rule 710 says of itself that it defines the CFCJ procedure. I therefore interpret sections (1) through (5) of rule 710 define the conditions under which material submitted to the justice system constitutes a CFCJ.

The material distributed as "CFCJ 119" does not satisfy section (3), section (4), or section (5) of Rule 710. Section (1) has not been satisfied, either, but game custom permits that that payment be implicit in the filing of an otherwise valid CFCJ. "CFCJ 119" was not a CFCJ.

Call For Judgement 328 - Sat, 18 Jan 1997 19:18:09 -0500
Subject: Cult Paradox
Initiator: Niccolo Flychuck
Judge: Techno (selected Jan 17, 1997, 13:20h EST)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Is impossible to determine with finality whether or not a cult has official status in Ackanomic.

First, I claim victory by paradox should this CFJ be judged True.
This hinges on what it means to have Official status.
R1301 8 f defines a Cult, and within the same section declares that it has no official status.
What does it mean to have Official status in Ackanomic?
I claim that for an entity or for a class of entities, which is implicitly reffered in the said section, to have official status it is sufficient for it to be defined, or to have a procedure that declares its existence. F'rinstance, President has Official status because it is defined by the rules. My being a player is an official status becuase there is a rule which defines a procedure on becoming a player, and when I joined the game the procedure in that rule was followed and I officialy became a player inthe game.
Contrariwise, if a player were to declare eirself Emperor, eir being an Emperor would have no official status.

I could go on with this, but I think the point should be clear.
Now for the paradox in that rule. R1301 8 f defines a cult, thus conferring on it official status, and immediately undefines its official status.
Therefore, I claim, it is impossible to determine with finality whether or not a Cult has Official status.

Rule 1301 item 2. says that a Church is not official until it has 3 followers. If we followed the claimants logic, the church would be official simply because is has been defined, no matter how many followers. In this rule, a Church is conferred official status when it reaches a predetermined size, a cult is never conferred official status. Therefore a cult is never official and that can be determined with finality.

Call For Judgement 329 - Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:35:43 -0500
Subject: Donations and Penalties
Initiator: ThinMan
Judge: Malenkai (selected Jan 17, 1997, 13:28h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Performing a voluntary transfer of currency or of any other entity does not constitute being penalized.

>As Malenkai noted, "In common english usage, the act of
>donating would not be considered a penalty, and in Acka,
>common english usage holds sway unless the rules or custom provide an
>alternative interpretation (CFJ 245 and severalothers)."

Malenkai went on to argue that CFJ 163 did, indeed, imply that voluntarilly transferring currency to the Treasury does constitute being penalized. I find Malenkai's application of CFJ 163 to this situation to be inappropriate. As I am unaware of any other rule or custom that would cause a voluntary transfer to be construed as a penalty, I assert the truth of the CFJ statement.

For the benefit of the Judge, who may not have been around at the time, I will comment on CFJ 163: Robert Sevin had achieved a score three points greater than the magic number, which in those days remained fixed at 257. He submitted and subsequently retracted three proposals, the penalty for each of which was one point at that time. Mr. Sevin therefore claimed to be the first winner of Ackanomic. The rule covering proposal retraction was numbered 423 at that time, and it specified that when an author retracted his proposal, he "gained" a one-point penalty. The initiator argued that a point penalty should be interpreted as causing the penalized player's score to move further away from the magic number, but the judge found against that position, deciding that to be penalized in that context meant to lose points, regardless of the penalized player's score.

There are several features of that case that are sufficiently different from this one that CFJ 163 should not be regarded as setting the relevant precedent or custom. Most importantly, it was the rules, not CFJ 163, that defined the score change in question to be a penalty. Moreover, the score changes were involuntary (even though they resulted from the voluntary action of retracting proposal) whereas the transfers covered in this case are stipulated to be voluntary. Finally, the question in CFJ 163 was not whether or not the score change was a penalty, but rather what the score change should be, considering the game situation and the fact that it _was_ a penalty. CFJ 163 is not a reliable guide for the present circumstances.
>

Although I see the appropriateness of CFJ 163 to this situation, I new as I wrote it that it was a weak parallel. ThinMan's argument is stronger, and it is true that a voluntary purchase or transfer of currency is not considered a penalty under current custom and linguistic interpretation.

Call For Judgement 330 - Fri, 07 Feb 1997 18:56:56 -0500
Subject: CFCJ 119 revisited
Initiator: Red Barn
Judge: Swann (selected Jan 17, 1997, 19:32h EST)
Judgement: FALSE at Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:38:18 -0500
Appealed by Red Barn at Wed, 22 Jan 1997 12:58:21 -0500
Supreme Court's Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The first complaint made by Red Barn was legitimately exercised for the purposes of R1448.

R1448 refers to a player "legitimately exercising this ability [to complain]". It is not clearly defined what precisely constitutes legitimately exercising the ability. Presumably, it can be defined as publicly posting a legitimate complaint. Nor is a legitimate complaint defined. However, R1448 says, on line 6 of paragraph one:

In order for this complaint to have the effects described in this rule,...

Therefore, it can be assumed that a legitimate complaint is, rather than a complaint having any specific effects, merely a complaint complying with the rules.
Paragraph one, lines 1-4, read:

Any new player of Ackanomic (defined, for these purposes, as a player who has been a player of Ackanomic for less than 31 days) that is playing Ackanomic for the first time (i.e. they have only joined the game of Ackanomic once) may publicly complain when they lose any points or currency. ...

Red Barn submitted an entity of ambiguous type to the Clerk of the Court, who treated it as a CFCJ until it was determined not to be.

Rule 710 states:
1) A "court fee" of A$20 will be paid by the player making the CFCJ, to the Treasury.

I submit that any action labelled as a CFCJ and treated as such by the Clerk of the Court incurs such a fee, because the action was treated as a CFCJ beyond the point at which such a fee would be incurred.

Therefore Red Barn paid A$20 to the court, and the complaint in question was legitimate.

I judge FALSE since it seems that, regardless of the perception of the caller, the money in question wasn't "really" debited, so the complaint was not legitimate.

The Court agrees with the original judge, as the money was never paid. Even if the filing fee was paid, however, it cannot be construed as a penalty. The issue of "penalty" was handled in CFJ 329, and the language of R 1129 (was 1448) indicates the loss must be a penalty.

Call For Judgement 331 - Sat, 18 Jan 1997 21:12:04 -0500
Subject: Active Players
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: Mohammed (selected Jan 18, 1997, 20:00h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

A Pending player becomes Active when it becomes publically knowable that they have voted in a Hearing or Election.

Game custom question, I guess. R 254 states, in part:

> Upon registration, a player is Pending. A Pending player becomes
> Active when it becomes publically knowable that he has voted or made
> a proposal.

The Judge must consider the possibility of game custom requiring that "voting" be construed to mean "voting on a proposal". I find that weak, especially as R 254 is a new rule, and this has never come up, to my knowledge, although I do suspect that voting meant that at one time.

Would then, voting within a church, or a game of Fictionary count?

Also, just the fact that it has not come up does not necessarily mean an interpretation has been forced to exclude the possibility.

The statement, as written, must be judged TRUE, but I do not think that responding to a Hearing counts.

More specifically, if a player somehow manages to cast a "vote" on a Hearing (through gadgetry, for instance), that makes em active, but normal responses are not necessarily "votes".

I think we've all assumed that only voting on Proposals counts, which is fine, but the rules specifically refer to Election responses as votes, so I think it's reasonable to say they count as well.

The rules do not refer to Hearing responses as votes at all, and I am not convinced that there is sufficient game custom to allow that reading of the rules.

Call For Judgement 332 - Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:36:41 -0500
Subject: Bribes
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: Swann (selected Jan 19, 1997, 18:48h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

A bribe of the form "Bribe: A random Trinket whose name contains the string 'Saaramaa'" is a valid bribe, assuming the author of the proposal containing such a bribe has enough Trinkets so named to satisify the bribe, and assuming the bribe complies with all of the other technical requirements specified in Rule 313 and elsewhere.

I hope so. Proposal bribery is described in Rule 313.

Considering this satement satisfies the requirement in 313 that "Bribes may only cause the transfer of tradeable or gift entities from the author of the proposal..." and the aleged trinkets are assumed [in the statement] to exist in sufficent quantity to pay off the voters, the Judge believes that the statement is trivally TRUE.

Call For Judgement 333 - Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:36:19 -0500
Subject: Birthday Goose
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: snowgod (selected Jan 21, 1997, 21:06h EST)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The legality of the President delivering the speech mandated by Rule 1630, section 5, after the players have received their Boons of the Ancients gifts for wishing Acka Happy Birthday per R 1630, section 4, in the general case where at least one player fails to wish Acka Happy Birthday, cannot be determmed with finality.

> Rule 1630
> Happy Birthday Ackanomic!

[...]

> Happy Bee Day festivities start on January 22, and continue until 12
> noon  on the following day. It is considered good form for each player
> to publically wish happy birthday greeting to Ackanomic at some
> point during the festivities.
> 
> During Happy Bee Day festivities, the following things will happen and in
> this order:

[by rule 380, the festivities start at 12:00 EST]

> 3) The undead's of all dead players will gather at the house of one
> unluckly player and cheer as one of them kisses him.  This player will be
> randomly selected from a list of players who have not publically wished
> happy birthday greetings to ackanomic.

This step can occur any time after 12:00 Noon. The next 2 steps mandated to happen in "this order" are:

> 4) Every Player who has publically wished happy birthday greetings to
> Ackanomic shall recieve a Boon of the Ancients.

> 5) The president shall make a speech commemerating the end of another
> Happy Bee Day and congratuling Ackanomic, and her players, for growing
> one year older.

Game custom requires that a non-paradoxical construction be favored over a paradoxical one. Although I find paradox difficult to avoid in this rule, "has" must be rendered to be "has up until the point the Boons are bestowed". Therefore, any happy birthdays after the prez's speech do not get boons. Any other rendering leads to paradox straightaway...

However, two points:

1) The prez must wait until the Boons are bestowed to speak.
2) Any players who wish happy birthay after the first round of Boons will receive Boons, because we are still at step 4, note the keyword "Every", but the prez must wait until all Boons are bestowed. Paradox.

Again trying to find a non-paradoxical interpretation (doing handwaving at this point, as this interpretion is "not as reasonable" as the paradoxical one in the rules) leads us to the prez shall speak after one round of Boons have been bestowed,

AGAIN:

and anyone wishing happy birthday after the Boons are bestowed does not get a Boon. But, the rule says *Every player [wishing]*, therefore the prez did an impossible [by R 713] act by trying to speak before the Boons for these latecomers have been bestowed, and therefore must hang until after the second round has been bestowed, and back to AGAIN, and so on.

How long does the prez wait? The premise stated that not all players have said happy birthday yet, and this is the general case, not a hypothtical case, and is the case that will occur, because not all players will wish at the same time. Eventually the festivities end, at step 6, *but not until the prez has spoken*!.

As the fact that the festivities end after the prez speaks is later in the rule than the clause that says they end at noon the next day, as is the clause that says the steps are done in order; the later clauses have precedence over the clause about the festivities ending the next day, by R 210. Even if they are construed to end January 23 at noon, the prez in asymptotically squoze up against the end, with indeterminate legality, but the precedence rule rules out this case anyway.

I challenge the judge to untangle the chain of events on this rule, in the case specified in the statement, the case that will happen, without handwaving or paradox.

Loose ends:

1) The initiator wins the cycle in accordance with R 219 on a verdict of true.

2) The president making the speech has a material effect on the game state, just like dangling houses or chewing the gumball, as it is an action mandated by the rules, for which failure to perform leads to a game state where a CFCJ against the prez would be judged true versus a game state where such a CFCJ would be judged false.

3) Clearly, the temporal modifier to apply to when Happy Birthay wishing counts is after the festivities have started, due to the first paragraph in the rule quoted above, but that matters not for this argument (I'm just trying to clarify that only wishes after 12:00 Noon count for the purposes of how to handle this rule, as this CFJ came when trying to write an official post explaining the chain of events, and simply asking players to put "Birthday" in their subject line! BTW, still do that, please :)).

Upon reciept of this CFJ, i initialy inclined to judge TRUE. However, upon taking a closer look (this isn't the first time Malenkai has tried to win off of my proposals :) I realized that Malenkai's arguement wasn't as sound as I sirst believed.

There is another nonparadoxial interpretation, and one that I believe is the correct one. Step 4 on the festivity list says:

> 4) Every Player who has publically wished happy birthday greetings to
> Ackanomic shall recieve a Boon of the Ancients.

I believe this can be interpreted as meaning "Every player who has publically wished happy birthday greetings to Ackanomic (by the time the officer in charge of such things decides to implement this step) shall recieve a Boon of the Ancients." Since implementation of this rule seems to fall to either the speaker or the Officer in Charge of Random Things he may chose to begin step 4 at any time and once he has done so, all players who have wished geetings shall recieve their Boon. This rule should have been more concise as to the timing and implimentation of these events, but even as it stands, implentation is possible. Also, though it is legal to impliment step 4 of the festivities at any time, I urge the officer in charge of implimentation to give a fair chance to every player to wish happy birthday greeting to ackanomic. Perhaps 24 hours of after the start of the holiday would be a good time?

I judge this CFJ FALSE and apologize for it's many spelling and typographic errors.

Call For Judgement 334 - Thu, 23 Jan 1997 19:55:44 -0500
Subject: Paradox Paradox
Initiator: Red Barn
Judge: ThinMan (selected Jan 22, 1997, 18:30h EST)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

It is impossible to determine with finality whether or not a CFJ is a Paradox Win CFJ.

Here's one to give the court a headache...
... I am claiming a Win by Paradox if this CFJ is judged true.

Rule 211 says:

> Rule 211/10  Invoking Judgement[...]
> Any CFJ which would constitute a win by rule 219 if it were judged TRUE
> (hereafter called a Paradox Win CFJ) whose statement is substantially
> similar, in the judgement of the judge, to the statement of a Paradox
> Win CFJ submitted by any player and not yet resolved, shall be judged
> Invalid.  Any Paradox Win CFJ which is based on the same sort of Paradox,
> in the judgement of the judge, as any Paradox Win CFJ ever judged TRUE,
> shall be judged Invalid.

Thus from rule 211, a Paradox Win CFJ is defined as "any CFJ which would constitute a win by rule 219 if it were judged TRUE".

Rule 219 reads:

> Rule 219/2  Winning By Paradox
>
>      If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible,
> rule changes are impossible, or a player action which would affect the
> game state appears equally legal and illegal, then a player may call
> for judgement on a statement to that effect.
>
> Such a call for judgement must contain in its reasoning a statement to
> the effect that the initiator is claiming a win in accordance with R 219,
> on a verdict of True.  Such a CFJ is called a "Paradox Win CFJ".  No CFJ
> may be called a Paradox Win CFJ, except as designated by the Rules.
>
> If the statement is judged True, and the judgement is not overruled, then
> the player who called for judgement is declared the winner of the cycle;
> the win occurring at the time it becomes illegal to appeal the CFJ
> under the current rules.

Thus the definition from rule 219 of a Paradox Win CFJ is "a CFJ with a statement to the effect that further play is impossible, rule changes are impossible, or a player action which would affect the game state appears equally legal and illegal".

Are these two definitions, in fact, equivalent? I maintain that they are not; paragraph 3 of rule 219 states "If the statement is judged True, _and_the_judgement_is_not_overruled_, [...]" Thus the definitions are distinct.

Rule 210 has this to say:

> Rule 210/3  Resolving Conflicts
>
> If two or more rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest
> effective ordinal number takes precedence.  If at least one of the rules
> in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or
> type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule),
> then such provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining
> precedence.  If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one
> another, or to defer to one another, then the numerical method must again
> govern.  If two statements in the same rule conflict with each other, and
> the rule doesn't define a way to resolve the conflict, then the statement
> which appears later in the rule takes precedence.[...]

Thus the definition in Rule 211 takes precedence. But then, if a Paradox Win CFJ is judged true, and that judgement is then overruled, that definition is _FALSE_!

Paradox.

Enjoy.

It is ironic that I should be chosen to judge this CFJ at a time when I have a proposal in the queue to correct this very situation. It is not as dire as Red Barn thinks, however. His argument is based around the observation that both R 211 and R 219 define the term "Paradox Win CFJ," and that the definitions, he claims, are not equivalent. He claims that, therefore, the definition in R 211 should take precedence. Red Barn goes on to argue that if a Paradox Win CFJ is initially judged true but later overturned, that the R211 definition is "false."

In untangling this mess, I first observe that R 210 covers rule _conflicts_. I claim, however, that the "Paradox Win CFJ" defintions in rules 211 and 219 do not conflict. Neither rule precludes other rules from defining other types of CFJs to be "Paradox Win CFJs," therefore there can be no conflict, just additional kinds of CFJ that qualify for that label. Furthermore, the definition in R 211 depends on the defintion in R 219, and thus is supplemental if anything.

Now, as to the potentiality of the R 211 definition being "false": it is impossible. A defintion is a definition; it is necessarilly true. This may lead to paradox (although in this case it does not), but it is indisputable. There are at least two non-paradoxical ways to parse the R 211 definition:

1) The definition may be taken literally, as Red Barn has done. In keeping with the spirit of literal rule reading, however, this leads me to the conclusion that R 211 does not define any CFJ to be a Paradox Win CFJ (although it also does not preclude other rules from so doing). This is because there is no CFJ that will produce a win under R 219 solely if it is judged true -- the judgement must also not be overturned.

2) The R 211 definition may be parsed as "[...] if the final verdict is TRUE." This, in fact, is more in accord with game custom, and therefore is given preference according to R 101. Such an interpretation should also be applied to the R 219 definition.

In support of invoking a non-literal interpretation according to game custom, I note that we agree that Mohammed won the cycle 8 by paradox (after the language in question was incorporated into rules 211 and 219).

Either way, however, the CFJ statement is FALSE, and either of these non-paradoxical interpretations is at least as reasonable as the possibly paradoxical one asserted by Red Barn, and thus must be preferred.

With that out of the way, I note that this CFJ is trivially false, for the vast majority of CFJs are unequivocally _not_ Paradox Win CFJs. If the statement had said "[...] whether or not _some_ CFJs [...]" then it would have been stronger. In conjunction with that point, and as an example, I observe that this CFJ itself is not a Paradox Win CFJ according to any reading of rule 219, nor, therefore, according to any reading of rule 211. Even if it were judged TRUE, it would not result in a win for Red Barn.

Call For Judgement 335 - Wed, 22 Jan 1997 23:24:52 -0500
Subject: Still unraveling Rule 1630
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected Jan 22, 1997, 19:47h EST)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Players who wished Acka 'Happy Birthday' before Jan 22, 1997, 12:00, EST, and have not done so after that time do not receive a Boon of the Ancients as a result of R 1630.

I was at least hoping to get that resolved as well with CFJ 333, but alas it was not. I believe the preamble of R 1630 establishes a scope that the 'Happy Birthday' wishes count only if done during the festivities, which start at 12:00, but it would be very easy for me to see a judgement of false the way the rule is worded. The fact that I believe this is because that is the way the rule was intended to work; that interpretation is a bit of handwaving. This may seem like a pointless CFJ, but I would like to make sure no one gets cheated out of their boon just due to my reading of the rules.

Needless to say, a prompt verdict would be nice.

The good news is we have a whole year to clean up the rule :)

I'd like the situation carefully.
The rule states that festivities start on January 22nd and does not specify a time of day, therefore the festivities start on noon at that day. It specifies that they continue until noon the next day, so far so good.
Section 4 is the relevant to this CFJ
it says
4) Every Player who has publically wished happy birthday greetings to Ackanomic shall recieve a Boon of the Ancients.

It states when Boons of the Ancients are received by players. It also states that those players are ones who have wished happy birthday to Ackanomic. It does not define a time frame for those wishes, except that they must have happened already, and the President's speech follows that act.

Specifically to the initiator's coment about the preamble. The preamble does not require anything of players, and does not restrict such birthday wishes, and while it may point to what might have been the intent of this rule, I can only judge by the actual wording of the rule, which, IMO, does not restrict Boon of the Ancient only to those players who made their public wishes during the festivities.

I judge this CFJ False.

Call For Judgement 336 - Mon, 03 Feb 1997 12:44:21 -0500
Subject: Silence of the Gaolbirds
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: Bascule (selected Jan 22, 1997, 20:40h EST) (failed to deliver verdict)
2nd Judge: ThinMan (selected Feb 01, 1997, 10:02h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

A player in Gaol may not send a public message except as allowed by, required by, or in conjunction with performing the activities listed in the numbered list in rule 709.

Sending a public message is a regulated game action. Specifically, it is regulated by rules 372, and 370, and its content is regulated by R 374, for example:

> Any Player sending a public message should be as polite as possible.

From R 709:

> If a player is in the Gaol, they may perform no game actions except
> those on the following numbered list and those allowed by Rule 101.

Sending a public message is not on the numbered list, and does not fall under the auspices of R 101 (which is the old R 115 and applies to unregulated actions).

Therefore it is not permitted to be performed by a player in Gaol, in general.

Now, what about in conjuction with the items on the numbered list, as the CFJ's statement explores that question specifically.

The meta clause before the numbered list explicitly defers precedence to any rule which regulates the items on the numbered list, therefore the above exclusion does not apply where the rules which enable those actions allow or require public messages in conjunction with performing those actions.

A verdict of TRUE is indicated, although unraveling the rules on this could be fun, and a verdict of FALSE is possible :)

I realise we have not been playing this way, but there is precedent for playing "wrong" before the fact is pointed out (qv CFJ 280, where it was pointed out that we did paradox wins "wrong" for awhile).

This also seems harsh, and maybe we should change it, but the rules are the rules.

I was at first inclined to judge FALSE, based on the argument that public posts were not always game actions. I do not find Rules 370 and 372 in conflict with that reasoning. However, the fact that Rules 374 and 1307, and perhaps others, make the text of any public post suitable for invoking a game response lead me to conclude that any public post must be construed as a game action. As such, R 709 prohibits players in Gaol from making public posts.

Call For Judgement 337 - Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:00:55 -0500
Subject: Invalid Paradox CFJs
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
Judge: Swann (selected Jan 22, 1997, 23:22h EST)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The correct verdict for any Paradox Win CFJ is Invalid.

from R211:

>Any CFJ which would constitute a win by rule 219 if it were judged TRUE
>(hereafter called a Paradox Win CFJ) whose statement is substantially
>similar, in the judgement of the judge, to the statement of a Paradox Win
>CFJ submitted by any player and not yet resolved, shall be judged
>Invalid.

Any Paradox Win CFJ's statement is substantially similar (actually, identical in all respects) to the statement of a Paradox Win CFJ submitted by some player and not yet resolved, to wit, its own.

Hence, the proper verdict is Invalid.

I judge this CFJ FALSE for the reason that the quoted Rule qualifies the similarity to be that in the judgment of the Judge ruling the CFJ, and while self-similarity might "objectively" be an absolute, we cannot make any assumptions on the beliefs and judgments of all possible Judges in all possible circumstances. Since a human judgment is involved-- a judgment which may be influenced by custom and the obvious intent of the rule-- the statement is not universally true for all Paradox Win CFJs.

However, this does mean that any Judge can rule any Paradox win CFJ invalid for this reason, e just isn't forced to by the Rule. (It is permitted, not mandatory.)

Call For Judgement 338 - Sun, 02 Feb 1997 09:07:53 -0500
Subject: Paradox Win CFJs
Initiator: ThinMan
Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected Jan 24, 1997, 20:04h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

CFJ 334 was not a Paradox Win CFJ.

The statement submitted for judgement number 334 was:

>It is impossible to determine with finality whether or not a CFJ is a
>Paradox Win CFJ.

Rule 219 defines a Paradox Win CFJ this way:

If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, rule
changes are impossible, or a player action which would affect the
game state appears equally legal and illegal, then a player may
call for judgement on a statement to that effect.

Such a call for judgement must contain in its reasoning a statement
to the effect that the initiator is claiming a win in accordance
with R 219, on a verdict of True. Such a CFJ is called a "Paradox
Win CFJ". No CFJ may be called a Paradox Win CFJ, except as
designated by the Rules.

Rule 211 may provide a supplemental definition of a Paradox Win CFJ,
but no CFJ will satisfy R 211's definition while not satisfying
R 219's.

CFJ 334 did not claim that further play was impossible, nor that rule
changes were impossible.  Malenkai has argued that the statement
would qualify under the third category, but I do not understand how
he supports that position.  Red Barn did not claim or argue that it
is illegal to submit a Paradox Win CFJ, nor that it is legal.  Rather,
he claimed and argued that the definition of "Paradox Win CFJ" is
indeterminate.  There is no player action in question, and no claim
of indeterminate legality -- only a claim of indeterminate definition.

As ThinMan pointed out CFJ 334 did not claim that further play was impossibe or that rule changes were impossible. It also didn't claim that an action was both legal and illegal. The strongest claim it could make was that all Paradox Win CFJs should be judged Invalid, which is unquestionably legal. Therefore it was not a paradox win CFJ

Call For Judgement 339 -
Subject: Leaving the Game
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
Judge: Jammer (selected Jan 24, 1997, 20:09h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Assuming the revelation in the post quoted below is true, that post resulted in Eponimondas leaving the game.

The relevant post:

>Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:35:40 -0500
>From: betsieboots@webtv.net (Zelda B. Morris)
>Subject: Acka: I accept.
>
>I accept Nietzsche's and Eponimondas'  money.
>And must inform All, that they were me all along. I thought I'd just
>wait till I could figure a really good paradox win. But I just didn't
>have enough time---I'm returnin' my webtv box. Maybe I'll see you boys
>when I get my 'puter.
>- -ZELDA M.
>(for now having to settle for bein' the richest woman in acka)
>P.S. I must resign, me and my DRONES.
>- -------JOAN OF ARKANSAS

From Rule 250:A player is any person who is registered as a player.

I assert that, if the revelation of this post is true (all mail from Eponimondas and the non-players neitzsche and Joan of Arkansas was indeed from the same person), the action of leaving the game, apparently taken by Joan of Arkansas and neitsche, was actually taken by Eponimondas, who left the game as a result of this post.

The act of leaving Acka was taken by the person (who for lack of a beter name I shall call "Zelda") in this post. "Zelda" was a person registered as a player, more specifically registered as a player under the Ackanomic name Eponimondas. In this post, she resigned from the game, and as a result was no longer registered as a player; more specifically, she was no longer registered under the player name Eponimondas, and so Eponimondas was no longer a player.

The fact that for some unknown reason she erroneously signed her name Joan of Arkansas instead of Eponimondas in her resignation message is immaterial to this argument. "Zelda" was a person who was registered as a player; as a result of this post, she became deregistered.

The judgement is Yes. The player known as Zelda, in whatever guise, has left the game. Thus according to Rule 256/6 "Leaving the Game" the following events occur:

1) All of his mimsy possessions are taken away and considered unowned.
2) The player is removed from all offices.
3) The rental period for any rented entities in his possession ends.

[They return to their true owners.] If there exist any entities being rented from him, such entities are no longer considered rented; the rental period for such entities does not end, but simply cease to exist; their current possessors become their owners in fact.
4) If the player was never at any time Active, all of his A$ are transferred to the Treasury, every PFBond associated with him is destroyed, every rented entity in his possession reverts to its owner, every entity remaining in his possession is destroyed, and then the player is deregistered. In this case, the procedure ends here.
5) If the player was at any time Active, the procedure continues.
6) Every PFBond associated with him is converted into a Bond Promissory in his real life name. Bond Promissories are tradeable entities.
7) An Undead is created; its name is that of the player.
8) All entities in the player's possession are taken away, considered unowned, haunted by the just-created Undead, and in the Treasury.
9) The player is deregistered.

I also observe that it is just as well that Zelda left the game, as the procedures for expeling a player are nebulous at best

Call For Judgement 340 - Sun, 02 Feb 1997 09:09:04 -0500
Subject: Player Registration
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected Jan 24, 1997, 20:17h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Assuming the revelation given in the post quoted below in Reasoning is true, neither Eponimondas nor neitzsche ever registered as players.

The relevant post:

>Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:35:40 -0500
>From: betsieboots@webtv.net (Zelda B. Morris)
>Subject: Acka: I accept.
>
>I accept Nietzsche's and Eponimondas'  money.
>And must inform All, that they were me all along. I thought I'd just
>wait till I could figure a really good paradox win. But I just didn't
>have enough time---I'm returnin' my webtv box. Maybe I'll see you boys
>when I get my 'puter.
>- -ZELDA M.
>(for now having to settle for bein' the richest woman in acka)
>P.S. I must resign, me and my DRONES.
>- -------JOAN OF ARKANSAS

From Rule 251:A person wishing to join the game, and who cannot do so as a Returning player, should notify the Registrar, providing a valid email address, their real name, and the legal Ackanomic name they wish to play under. Upon them providing this information, should the requested name indeed be a legal Ackanomic name, the Registrar shall post a public message announcing the new player and providing their Ackanomic name, real name, and email address, and if the prospective player provided it, how they discovered the game. Upon the posting of such an announcement, the person becomes registered as a player.

Assuming the post quoted above is true (that one person, for lack of a better name here known as "Zelda," on three separate occasions attempted to register as an Ackanomic player, under the names Eponimondas, neitzsche, and Joan of Arkansas respectively, and that "Zelda Morris" is indeed that person's name), then on the first two occasions, her attempt to register failed miserably.

To wit, "Zelda" failed to provide the minimum information necessary to become registered as a player: on the first two occasions, she did not provide her real name, instead providing the pseudonyms Adam Gesher and Moses Rojas.

As a result, the Registrar did not post a proper message announcing their admission to Ackanomic: the messages which at one time appeared to serve this purpose did not actually contain the player's real name, and as a result, neither Eponimondas nor neitzsche ever became a player.

[no comments were submitted]

The game state is adjusted as if the "revelation" referred to in CFJ 340 is not true. This fact is annotated in the record of that CFJ. [We've been playing that thread (CFJ 340 false thread). If we go with CFJ 340 as true, and that information as true, I believe we have some *big* problems. This allows the CFJ to remain judged true, but for that judgement not to have a devestating effect. This is another thing that has bothered me, and creation of this rule will validate this thread.]

Go