CALL FOR JUDGEMENT ARCHIVE (341-355)

Call For Judgement 341 - Fri, 07 Feb 1997 19:09:32 -0500
Subject: The Revenge of Hubert
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
Judge: Robert Sevin (selected Jan 28, 1997, 21:41h EST) (declined)
2nd Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected Jan 29, 1997, 00:23h EST) (did not respond)
3rd Judge: ThinMan (selected Feb 01, 1997, 00:43h EST) (used R425)
4th Judge: Supreme Court (selected Feb 03, 1997, 12:58h EST)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Guy Fawkes' guess as to the Machine's That Goes *ping*'s Truth on the morning of January 28, 1997, preceded ThinMan's similar guess as to the Truth.

Not that I am hellbent on what was really a very cheap guess for either of us, but it is important to know.

In the similar Hubert situation (CFJ 324, excellent reading, by the way), it was ruled that one must use the sender's timestamp in determining the order of Ackanomic actions, unless a time correction factor for the sender's computer (via the last paragraph of R370) is in effect. At the time of the guesses at the truth, neither ThinMan's nor my email had a correction factor in effect.

Since then, Proposal 1572 added this clause to the end of Rule 370 to attempt to resolve future "Hubert" situations.

>Such corrections may be applied retroactively, provided they are
>announced within 3 days of the post or posts to which they are being
>applied. Moreover, it is a privilege of the Postmaster to post such
>corrections with respect to other players' posts, if he can factually
>determine the relevant information.

I contend that this clause does not have its intended effect; namely, it cannot generate a retroactive effect.

>From Rule 103 (precedent over R370)
>No rule may generate any effect that applies retroactively to a time
>before the generation of the effect.

When a player invokes the questionable clause of Rule 370, it attempts to generate an effect (an email correction factor) which applies retroactively to a time before the generation of the effect (the time at which to correction factor was posted).

Although Proposal 1572's efforts are well-intentioned, they are null, and that ThinMan's correction factor did not apply to his guess at the Truth.

On a side note, I question whether it is possible for the Postmaster to _factually_ determine the correction factor using email headers. For simplicity's sake, let's accept for the rest of this reasoning, wilma's time as being "correct"; whether it is or not, it gives us a frame of reference. Timestamps for the two messages (min:sec)

                GF              Thinman
localhost       7:23            7:37
intermediate    7:23            5:31
wilma           8:19            6:13

It is obvious that ThinMan's machine was "fast" relative to wilma, but by how much? The intermediates are no help; they too could be fast or slow. It is also possible that the uiuc machines were even faster than ThinMan's this morning. Furthermore, any number of system clocks could have been adjusted in the meantime, making measurements against the atomic clock server _now_ unreliable.

The point of this is, even if it were legal for the Postmaster to apply a retroactive timestamp correction, there is not enough data for him to do so. It is entirely possible (although admittedly improbable) that I did indeed hit the "send" key before ThinMan and my message was stalled on the wire somewhere, and that inaccurate clocks make it impossible to determine with finality whether or not this is indeed the case.

This area needs more work.

As an interested party, and not having the option of declining judgement, I hereby send CFJ 341 to the Supreme Court.

Malenkai's comments:

First, as far as the Postmaster factually determining the relavent information, it can be argued that nothing can be determined factually in this game. Myself and Red Barn could be the same player, for example. How do you know were not? "Factually" has to be construed in the context of the "spirit of the game", as it has been the entire game, and in this light, it it my judgement that the Postmaster factually determined ThinMan's machine guess to be first, and exercised his privilege to apply this correction.

So it does come down to the retroactivity question raised by the initiator. From R 103:

> No rule may generate any effect that applies retroactively to a time
> before the generation of the effect. A rule change that would have
> effects retroactive to before the time of its application is invalid.

From R 370:

> Such corrections may be applied retroactively, provided they are
> announced within 3 days of the post or posts to which they are
> being applied.

I agree with ThinMan that the correction is not a retroactive *effect*, but disagree in that I construe it to be a retroactive *interpretation* (where he labelled it a present-time interpretation).

All matters of Judgement in this game are retroactive interpretations -- it is not possible for them to be otherwise. Judgements apply retroactively to any game-state split that they adjudicate, and are not really *effects*, but Platonically tell us which game state we happen to be in. I render the language at the end of R 370 to be similar to judgement, in this case it being a privilege of the Postmaster or the person sending the e-mail to make that judgement, provided they comply with the other parameters of the priviledge. The fact that the Postmaster's judgement in this matter was not made via a formal CFJ is irrelavent.

/dev/joe's comments:

> >From R 370:
>
> > Such corrections may be applied retroactively, provided they are
> > announced within 3 days of the post or posts to which they are
> > being applied.
>
> I agree with ThinMan that the correction is not a
> retroactive *effect*, but disagree in that I construe it to be a
> retroactive *interpretation* (where he labelled it a present-time
> interpretation).

I agree with this "retroactive interpretation" interpretation.

I also agree with ThinMan's argument that his already-published correction factor was sufficient to make his post be first, even without my later, different correction, but note that if there was a difference, my correction based on the time stamps of the individual messages would hold.

I also note that this verdict results in ThinMan being the Scholar just after I ceased to be Scholar, but since he went on vacation, the machine teleports to another player's home.

Call For Judgement 342 - Mon, 03 Feb 1997 12:52:21 -0500
Subject: Tickling Tickle-Me Elmo
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: Jammer (selected Jan 28, 1997, 22:35h EST) (did not respond)
2nd Judge: ThinMan (selected Jan 31, 1997, 23:03h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

The Blueprint for the "Tickle-Me Elmo" either is destroyed (or does not exist), or if it does, it is in conflict with the rules and should be destroyed (as should any Gadgets made from it) in accordance with Rule 594.

There are 2 possible cases here, governed from different parts of Rule 594, *either* of which is sufficient for a verdict of TRUE.

Case I:

From R 594:

> If a new Blueprint does not (a) introduce exactly one new type of
> Gadget, (b) name the new Gadget type, and (c) unambiguously define
> the behavior of such a Gadget, it is immediately destroyed. 

From the Blueprint for "Tickle-Me Elmo":

> A single Tickle-Me Elmo is selected from this sentence.

This part of the Blueprint causes the Blueprint to run afoul of clause (c) above; it does not unabiguously define the behaviour of the Tickle-Me Elmo. What does this mean? It is not clear, ambigious. I challenge the Judge to unambiguously state the behaviour.

This satisfies the first part of the boolean OR in the CFJ's statement, and is sufficient for a verdict of TRUE, as the Blueprint is immediately destroyed.

Case II:

Although I find the Blueprint defining ambiguous behaviour as described above, the only reasonable rendering of the clause above to avoid ambiguity is to construe 'selected' to mean 'created', 'built', or 'manufactured'.

However, from R 597:

> Only the Mad Scientist can construct anything from a Blueprint created
> by this Rule [...]

Thus the Tickle-Me Elmo, in building a Tickle-Me Elmo via the 'selected' clause, runs afoul of the clause from R 597, and is in violation of the rules, and thus by the following clause in R 597 is destroyed:

> (ii) When a Blueprint is judged to be in conflict with one or more
> Rules, the Blueprint is destroyed, as are any extant Gadgets made
> from that Blueprint. 

This case is also sufficient to satisfy the boolean OR in the statement, leading to a verict of TRUE.

In short, the sentence:

> A single Tickle-Me Elmo is selected from this sentence.

Invalidates the Blueprint. Ie, what does this sentence unambigiously mean?

I do not find anything in the sentence highlighted by Malenkai that leads me to conclude that it runs afoul of Rule 597. I do, however, find that the blueprint for Tickle-Me Elmo does not exist. Rule 597 specifically says that the blueprint-under-construction cannot become a blueprint until one of the following conditions is satisfied:

v) Its construction is such that any new Parts would be rejected.
vi) It is over 1000 words long.
vii) It consists of more than 25 complete sentences.

The Mad Scientist's contention is that the addition of the last part supplied by Guy Fawkes caused the blueprint-under-construction to satisfy (v): "At this Tickle-Me Elmo the Blueprint is constructed, (and is a Blueprint) and no more Parts may ever be added to it." The Mad Scientist has claimed publicly and elucidated to me privately that he believes that addition of any other part would cause the monster to have conflicting attributes via the "no more Parts may ever be added" provision.

I disagree. I first note that there is no specification of which blueprint the blueprint-under-construction refers to in the questionable section. It makes no sense for it to refer to itself, for not only is a blueprint not empowered to regulate itself, but also the document in question will already be a blueprint before that clause has any potential to have legal force. Perhaps the clause will cause null blueprints to be continuously constructed at the location of Tickle-Me Elmo. In any case, the "no more parts" bit clearly applies to the blueprint to be constructed, and not, therefore, to the blueprint containing the provision.

Suppose, however, that we construe the questionable provision to actually apply to the blueprint that contains it. How would this cause a generic Part to give the Monster conflicting attributes? Consider, for instance, the hypothetical part "Tickle-Me Elmo is." Does the earlier part of the blueprint somehow say that TME is not? By no means. At best one could postulate some sort of implicit "this part was added after the previous one" attribute to each provision of the blueprint. That might conceivably lead to a conflict, but I find such a position very hard to accept. Even if one did recognize such implicit characteristics, I assert that they would be characteristics of the _blueprint_, not of the Monster.

I also observe that the Part in question specifies only that no more parts are to be added -- it does not say "after this one," or anything to that effect. If the clause were construed to apply to the monster rather than the blueprint then I claim that it would still not conflict with other parts. We must consider the constructed Monster. Once it is done (indeed, once the blueprint is done) rule 597 assures that no more parts may be legally added. This is fully in accord with the pertinent provision of the document, as that provision cannot be applied until it is given force by the construction of the monster.

As R597's conditions have not yet been satisfied, the blueprint for Tickle-Me Elmo does not yet exist.

Finally, I observe that (i) rule 597 puts the Mad Scientist in a precarious position by requiring him to follow strict procedures whose application is potentially open to debate, but not giving him any discretionary power to interpret those procedures; (ii) the Mad Scientist appears to have broken rule 597 by not keeping the contents of the blueprint-under-construction secret.

Call For Judgement 343 - Thu, 06 Feb 1997 18:12:08 -0500
Subject: Building
Initiator: Jammer
Judge: snowgod (selected Jan 28, 1997, 23:10h EST) (declined)
2nd Judge: Bascule (selected Jan 31, 1997, 15:06h EST) (declined)
3rd Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected Feb 03, 1997, 00:01h EST) (failed to respond)
4th Judge: ThinMan (assigned Feb 06, 1997, 01:14h EST)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Jammer should be allowed to build his house.

Basically, there is no rule against it.

According to Rule 101/1
The Game of Ackanomic

     Ackanomic is a self-modifying game of rules. All players must always
abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then
in
     effect, and interpreted in accordance with current game custom.

     The rules and the game state may only be changed as described in the
rules. Actions described in the rules may only be performed, and shall only
     have those effects, as specified by the rules. Whatever is not
explicitly prohibited or regulated by the rules, however, is permitted and
     unregulated. Game custom, spirit of the game, and linguistic
interpretation are external concepts and are not regulated or part of the
game state.

     The game consists of a sequence of "Cycles". Cycles end when specified
by the Rules. At most one Cycle is in progress at any one time. A
     player may only win a Cycle by achieving a winning condition that is
defined by the Rules. A player may not win the Game of Ackanomic. A
     player always has the option to leave the Game of Ackanomic.

     This rule has precedence over all other rules.

Within the Rules there are rules regarding the size of buildings
Rule 839/6
Buildings
Calvin N Hobbes (Thierry Joffrain)

     A building is a class of entity in Ackanomic which can be of six
sizes:

          small (aka cramped or puny) (1 land unit)
          cosy (2 land units)
          classy (4 land units)
          lavish (6 land units)
          sumptuous (9 land units)
          extravagant (12 land units)

     Each instance of a player Home is a Common Location, with the
restriction that no player may enter a Home they don't own without
permission
     of the owner.

     The Senate Building is lavish. The FM building is a classy place. The
Courthouse is a cosy building. These buildings may never be smaller that as
     defined originally but can be greater. All of these buildings are
Common Locations.

     All other land, with or without buildings on them, that is not owned
by players is called common lands. All deals to sell or buy common land
must
     be approved by Senate vote.

     The size of the buildings cannot be changed except as allowed by the
rules.

which does not refer in any way to how to build a building, as well as
rules
covering the size of thing that has some revelaence to the subject of
buildings

Rule 1519/0
The Size of Things
Jammer (John Lotz)

     I wish to make a modest proposal.

     All Items in Acka have a size measured in thingees.

     Negligible 0 Thingees
     Small 1 Thingees
     Medium 2 Thingees
     Large 4 Thingees
     Huge 5 Thingees
     Really Huge 6 Thingees

     The significance of this is that all structures and land have a
capacity measured in Thingees as well;
     A Space in a structure holds 10 Thingees.
     A Kaa of land holds 25 Thingees.
     A Tower holds 6 Thingees.

Once again there is no element of description of how to build one.

Additionally there are references to houses in
Rule 252/1
Joining the Game
Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

     For the purposes of this rule, a player whose most recent departure
from Ackanomic prompted the creation of an Undead is considered a
     Returning player. All other players are considered New.

     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.

     Upon the registration of a New player, the following procedure takes
place, in the order shown.

     1) The New player is granted 1 kaa of urban land and a Small building
thereupon as their legal residence. This building shall be known as their
     Home. This building shall also be known as "player name's House",
where "player name" is replaced by their official Ackanomic name. A player
     may change the name of this building by publically announcing the new
name and unambiguously identifying the building they wish to rename.

     2) The New player is paid from the Treasury the average A$balance of
all other extant players.

     3) The New player is given 100 newly created PFBonds associated with
himself. The Financier shall assign a label that may be used to refer to
     the PFBonds associated with the New player, although this procedure
may continue without waiting for him to do so.

     4) The Registrar shall select a Mentor for the new player. The Mentor
receives A$25 from the Treasury.

     A person able to join the game as a Returning player may do so by
posting a public message to that effect. This message must include their
     Ackanomic and real life names, as well as a valid email address. The
Registrar shall then record their return to the players list.

     Upon the registration of a Returning player, the following procedure
takes place:

     1) The Undead created in response to their most recent departure from
Acka, who bears the Ackanomic name that player had immediately prior
     to his most recent departure from Acka, transfers all entities it is
haunting to the Returning player. These entities are now no longer haunted.


     2) That Undead is destroyed.

     3) All Bond Promissories in that player's real life name are converted
to PFBonds associated with that player. Their label is the same as the
     PFBonds whose conversion created the Bond Promissories.

     4) If the player left during the current cycle, his score is the
minimum of 0 and the score he had upon last leaving the game. Otherwise,
his score is
     -15N, where N is the number of cycles he has won. If this causes his
score to be negative, he is given a Victory Eggplant, and his Eggplant
     Weight is set to -15N, where N is defined as above.

While the appropriate section of this rule
 1) The New player is granted 1 kaa of urban land and a Small building
thereupon as their legal residence. This building shall be known as their
     Home. This building shall also be known as "player name's House",
where "player name" is replaced by their official Ackanomic name. A player
     may change the name of this building by publically announcing the new
name and unambiguously identifying the building they wish to rename;

does seem to mention the creation of a house, neither states how this is
accomplished nor does it preclude any
other method of doing so.

Other mentions to buildings and houses and structu mention the size of a
building, not anything about how to build it.

At the same time it should be noted that there are rules on how to create
trinkets, blueprints and the like to provide a means to
make them, so it cannot be argued that it is emmpossible or there was
neither time nor room to concider it.

Jammer has argued convincingly that there was, at the time this CFJ was submitted, no procedure established for the construction of new buildings of any type. Such construction is therefore neither explicitly prohibited nor explicitly regulated. However, that is insufficient to render the action permissable -- it must also be the case that the action does not affect the game state.

Does constructing a building, then, affect the game state? I conclude that it does, and refer to Rule 1321:

Deep In the rain forest it was doing what it usually does in rain forests, which was raining: hence the name. This rain will cause a horrible flood to sweep through Ackanomic destroying all of the suction cups that keep us attached to the bottom of the earth is something is not done. Therefore, sometime during the first three days of each month every non-vacationing priest must post a prayer of deliverance to the public forum. This prayer must contain at lest 3 words with 6 syllables, and one line of text that is "spoken in tongues".

If exactly one priest fails to comply with this rule his house shall lose it's suctions cups and dangle from the bottom of the earth. If two priest fail to comply, 5 buildings chosen at random will lose their suctions cups. If more than two priest fail to comply, the floods shall destroy all of the suction cups in Ackanomic, causing everything to dangle.

There is at least one instance in which a random determination among the existing buildings must be made, the addition of a building not only alters the odds of other buildings being randomly selected, but allows the possibility that the new building will be selected.

I observe that if we agree that buildings are entities by game custom, then construction of a new building necessarilly changes the game state, as it gives the builder a new possession. I am not entirely confortable in deciding that buildings qualify as entities, however.

I also note that I am required to judge the truth or falsehood of the statement as of the time that it was submitted for judgement. Since that time we have added R846 to the ruleset, which codifies the construction and demolition of buildings, so Jammer can, in fact, build a new house, provided that he complies with R 846.

Call For Judgement 344 - Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:02:37 -0500
Subject: Open Invitation at the Monument to Futility
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected Jan 31, 1997, 00:37h EST) (failed to deliver verdict)
2nd Judge: ThinMan (assigned Feb 07, 1997, 01:09h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

/dev/joe is not at the Monument of Futility, as of the time of the finding of Treasure 103.

This is not nit-picking; I generally find the sort of nuance in this CFJ interesting, and somewhat important in developing a notion of what "game state" is. If no one else does, I apologize.

/dev/joe posted about 3 days ago:

------
A long time ago, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> I am adding a 145-meter Ostentatious Tower to Xanadu.  Its name is the
> Monument to Futility.
>
> On each side of the door to the Monument to Futility is a large marble
> tablet bearing the legend, "This tower was erected by Guy Fawkes on the
> First of November in Year One of Ackanomic.  It serves as a memorial to
> all who have tried and failed to win by means of paradox, and as a
> reminder that these Calls for Judgement are not nuissances, but an
> integral part of our heritage.  All are free to enter the Monument, but
> do so with neither irritation nor anger, for the discourse engendered by
> these attempts has been well worth the efforts in having them judged." [...]

I am going to the Monument to Futility.
------

From R 835:

> 4) A Location may be specified as a Common Location. Players may leave
> and enter such Locations freely, provided they meet any specific
> conditions that may be defined for the Common Location. 

From R 839:

> Each instance of a player Home is a Common Location, with the
> restriction that no player may enter a Home they don't own without
> permission of the owner. 

The question is, did Guy Fawkes grant /dev/joe permission to enter his house (the tower, for all intents and purposes, is part of the house, permission to enter one is sufficient to enter the other).

If he did not have permission, he is not at the Tower.

/dev/joe claims permission is granted from the description of the Tower itself [or at least I presume that is the basis of the claim]:

> All are free to enter the Monument, but do so with neither irritation
> nor anger

What if /dev/joe attempted to do so with anger? Is the Tower description sufficient to deny permission to an angry player to enter?

I argue that the Tower description has no power to change the game state in this way, and that is the key point of this CFJ, what is a change in the game state? I argue that the granting of permission to enter a common location is a change in the game state, and that a Tower description does not have the authority to do that.

From R 841:

> Towers may not manipulate protected entities or perform protected
> actions

The "protected" language is from a previous era in the rules, but it seems that granting permission to enter a common location is protected.

On the other hand, it does seem obvious that a player should be able to grant permission via a tower description, but I do not think "seeming obvious" is enough.

What if the owner of the Tower wants to revoke permission? Can they override the desciption carved in the Tower? If the description is granted authority by the rules to grant the permission, the answer is no. If it is not, this CFJ is trivially TRUE.

I'm not overly concerned where /dev/joe is, as it did not affect the treasure hunt, but again apologize for finding this sort of thing interesting.

I do not think it justified to construe the description of a tower, trinket, or other entity to have any legal ramification whatsoever, except insomuch as the rules may explicitly stipulate such in certain instances. Guy Fawkes intent may well have been to grant general permission, but I do not find that he legally did so.

Call For Judgement 345 - Wed, 05 Feb 1997 19:48:36 -0500
Subject: Magic Number
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: Lestrade (selected Feb 02, 1997, 11:09h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

The magic number for the cycle in which Proposal 1657 was accepted is 257 as of the time this CFJ is distributed.

Proposal 1657 amended rule 220 to change the magic number from 257 to 541. However, I'm not sure that would apply to the value of the magic number for the cycle in which the amendment occurred, as that was already established at the start of the cycle. I don't care either way, and can see the argument either way (although, without thinking about it a great deal, I believe this CFJ is true), but better to make sure now than at the end of the cycle.

Rule 666 states:

k) The game cycle number is incremented, and the Magic Number is reset to its base value.

This states that the base magic number value, for a cycle, is set at the beginning of a cycle. Change of the base magic number value would, unless stated otherwise in a proposal, only have effect on scoring after the current cycle is completed. Since the proposal in question is not framed in such a way as to override 666 k), the magic number for the current cycle victory purposes is 257.

Call For Judgement 346 - Sat, 15 Feb 1997 23:48:55 -0500
Subject: Inconsistent
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: Strider (selected Feb 06, 1997, 23:23h EST)
Judgement: INVALID at Sun, 09 Feb 1997 15:07:06 -0500
Appealed by Malenkai at Sun, 09 Feb 1997 15:15:10 -0500
Supreme Court's Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Malenkai did not accept the trade quoted below, and was the victim of an Orbital Mind Control Laser.

The following offer was offer to Malenkai, who never accepted it. However, the OMCL transferred the entities anyway. The ftp archives will verify that Malenkai never accepted this offer.

A verdict of FALSE should quote Malenkai's acceptance, as a matter of record, if such a verdict is rendered.

> I hereby offer Malenkai the Trinket I received in the Castle on a Cloud
> (one of the Little Bags O' Chips), in exchange for all the Trinkets e owns
> whose names contain two consecutive 'k's *and* Malenkai's Scroll of
> Crumble.

The problem with this CFJ, and the reason it is invalid, is that the events it refers to did not happen. I refer to Rule 255, which reads, in part, "The only thing a player on vacation may legally do is take himself off vacation." I also refer to Rule 101, which reads, in part, "All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect,"

As Mohammed was on vacation at the time this "trade" was offered, it should have no effect on the game state of Ackanomic. Guy Fawkes use of the OMCL also had no effect, as there was no trade for it to affect.

R 211 describes when a CFJ should be judged as Invalid. The statement of this CFJ falls into none of those categories. It is a clear single statement that can be answered true or false. It is not substantially similar to another CFJ or its negative from the last week, nor is it similar to a paradox win CFJ judged true in the past.

As to the facts, the events in question occured in the following order, which can be verified by the ftp archive.

Mohammed offered a trade
Guy Fawkes used the OMCL on that trade
Proposal 1700 failed, putting Mohammed on vacation

The Court finds that Malenkai did not, in fact, accept the trade in question, and, thus, finds that he was, indeed, a victim of the Orbital Mind Control Laser (giving "victim" it's ordinary English meaning, as it is not specially defined in the Rule Set).

A$1 (treated as 1 point, since the penalty is points, not A$)

Call For Judgement 347 - Wed, 19 Feb 1997 07:48:03 -0500
Subject: Finding Phoebe
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected Feb 12, 1997, 18:08h EST)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Phoebe's matchbox is not missing.

Always interested in linguistic interpretation of the rules and fleshing out game custom, and finding plenty of bandwidth to spare all of the sudden, what to do with Phoebe comes to mind.

R 909 describes certain conditions under which Phoebe's matchbox is "deemed to be missing". Generally Phoebe's matchbox goes missing when her wisdom is posted, or the time limit to post the wisdom has elapsed.

In this case, however, Guy Fawkes left the game while he had Phoebe, and Phoebe is both unique and mimsy, and R 256 describes what happens:

> 1) All of his mimsy possessions are taken away and considered unowned.

R909 says a lot about how players interact with the Steel Flea. Eir matchbox is found, it is a great discovery. Nowhere does it say that it is ever owned by the player. If the Flea wants to schmoose with the player who found it, it's her prerogative. Since the matchbx isn't owned by the player, the above quoted rule does not apply to it.

Call For Judgement 348 - Thu, 27 Feb 1997 22:06:13 -0500
Subject: Haunted Houses
Initiator: breadbox
Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected Feb 23, 1997, 15:15h EST)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Robin Hood's house is dangling.

I myself don't think that it is, and this seems to be the general consensus, but I just want to make it official.

Robin Hood's house was originally deemed to be dangling by an application of Rule 1321, "Rama-lama-ding-dong". Depending upon the (in)actions of certain players, the relevant sentence says: "5 buildings chosen at random will lose their suctions cups." Then, Rule 1309 states: "In the event that any item loses it's [sic] suction cups, which may only happen in accordance with the rules, it shall fall off of the earth and dangle from it's [sic] surface by the attached emergency tether."

Whether or not this can apply to undead houses is called into question by this passage in Rule 258: "Entities that are haunted by Undead cannot be manipulated in any way except by an action of the Undead. This clause takes precedence over any Rule that would otherwise allow haunted entities to be manipulated."

Rule 258 seems to say that even Rules are powerless to manipulate a Haunted entity, a category which certainly includes Robin Hood's house.

A verdict of TRUE would indicate that the houses of De'ghew and Mellon were never dangling either, and that the supposed actions of myself and others to reattach them did not actually occur.

Breadbox's argument makes a clear case from R258. After checking the chronology of when each rule was passed and when the incident occurs...

Call For Judgement 349 - Tue, 11 Mar 1997 21:04:59 -0500
Subject: Public Actions
Initiator: Mohammed
Judge: Narf (selected Mar 08, 1997, 22:01h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Voting on a proposal is a public action and cannot be accomplished through private mail.

Let me prelude this by saying I sincerely hope it gets judged False somehow. I may have overlooked some stuff. Anyway:

Rule 260 ("Public Actions"):

> If the rules specify that a certain course of play is available to a
> player or organization, but do not specify how that course of play
> is to be taken, then that course of play is a public action, and it
> is taken as described above.

Rule 408 ("Tabulator and Count Tabula"):

> The Office of the Tabulator is a Functional Office. The Duties of
> the Tabulator are:
> (a) to count votes on each proposal.

Rule 106 has more on voting, but it doesn't mention the Tabulator.

>Let me prelude this by saying I sincerely hope it gets judged False
>somehow.  I may have overlooked some stuff.  Anyway:

That's funny, I hope to be able to judge it False somehow.

>260 ("Public Actions"):
>> If the rules specify that a certain course of play is available to a
>> player or organization, but do not specify how that course of play
>> is to be taken, then that course of play is a public action, and it
>> is taken as described above.

The following is the first part of R260:

Each attempt to perform an action either succeeds or fails. To perform an action entails two things: first, to attempt the action; and second, for the attempt to succeed.

The rules may specify that certain possible courses of play are public actions. Any active player may attempt any public action available to him or her simply by sending a public message specifying the action to be taken. However, if any information that is necessary to specify the action fully and unambiguously is left out of that message, then the attempt fails. [An attempt may also fail for other reasons.]

I was hoping to judge this CFJ false on the grounds that R260 says "Any active player MAY attempt... "[emphasis added by me] but the follow on paragraph ( "...that course of play is a public action, and it is taken as described above.") seems to me to clarify that the ONLY way to take a public action is through a public post.

>Rule 408 ("Tabulator and Count Tabula"):
>> The Office of the Tabulator is a Functional Office. The Duties of
>> the Tabulator are:
>> (a) to count votes on each proposal.

Unfortunately, it does not specify how the votes are to be collected or tabulated, leaving it subject to R260.

>Rule 106 has more on voting, but it doesn't mention the Tabulator.

Nor does it specify how votes are collected or tabulated.

My last hope in judging this CFJ false came from R215 which says:

All Judgements must be in accordance with all the rules in effect at the time judgement was invoked, and with respect to the game state at that time. When the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the statement in question, however, then the Judge shall consider currently existing game custom and the spirit of the game in reaching a decision.

I was hoping to use currently existing game custom and the spirit of the game to render this CFJ false. However, the rules are not silent, inconsistent or unclear on the statement in question, therefore this clause does not apply.

It is with a great deal of trepidation and worry that I therefore
A) return a verdict of TRUE on CFJ 349
and
B) Ask for a CSRR report on the matter at hand. It would take very little in the way of change and I expect the reaction to it would be positive.

Call For Judgement 350 - Tue, 11 Mar 1997 21:04:21 -0500
Subject: Renaming Houses I
Initiator: Niccolo Flychuck
Judge: fnord (selected Mar 08, 1997, 22:08h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

In R252 section 1, in the sentence " A player may change the name of this building by publically announcing the new name and unambiguously identifying the building they wish to rename." refers to the player's own building.

When we see the word 'this' in a sentence such as the above sentence in a phrase such as 'this building', we need to ask 'which building' in order to resolve the phrase unambigously. Since no building is mentioned in that statement (which statment? the above statement, as the previous sentence clarifies), it must refer to a building that was refered to in a preceding sentence. In those sentences (which ones? why, the preceding ones, of course), the building refered to is clearly the player's own building, and not just any building the name of which is satisfies the formula "player name's house." Therefore 'this' in the quoted sentence unambigously referes only to the player's own building.

I almost judged this Invalid, considering how confusing the original statement had been, however, a second reading showed what I believe to be the intent of the CFJ.

Reading the paragrpah the statement had been lifted from made clear the intention of the statement. The entire paragraph is discussing a New Player's Home, and the naming thereof. In fact, the sentence just before it states 'This building shall also be known as "player name's House"...'. The latter portion of the sentence referring to 'unambiguously identifying the building' was written, I believe, merely to make it easier for the Map-Harfer to find the building which would be having its name changed.

Call For Judgement 351 - Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:12:11 -0500
Subject: Renaming Houses II
Initiator: Niccolo Flychuck
Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected Mar 08, 1997, 22:11h EST)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The name of the residence owned by Niccolo Flychuck is Niccolo Flychuck's House

Mohammed posted a message to the effect that e was renaming Niccolo Flychuck's House. I argue that the house was not renamed, since the rule the regulates house naming and renaming does not in fact allow Mohammed to rename any house e likes. This rests on the other CFJ I submitted where I argued that 'this' reffered only to the player's own house. That interpretation implies that Mohammed's attempt to rename houses failed, and therefore all the houses supposedly renamed in that posting retained their original names. Specifically Niccolo Flychuck's House was not renamed, and is still named Niccolo Flychuck's House.

CFJ 350 tells us that :

>In R252 section 1, in the sentence " A player may change the name of this
>building by publically announcing the new name and unambiguously
>identifying the building they wish to rename." refers to the player's own
>building.

Technically, this sentence is lacking in the area of subject object agreement and probably should have been invalid. It is not a complete statement which can honestly be judged true or false.. Read "In R252 section 1, in the sentence "quoted text" refers to the player's own building." By judging this statement TRUE, nothing about the name state of ackanomic house was changed.

Therefore, what I am about to do is legal, and has the full force of established case law behind it.

In his reasoning on CFJ 352 breadbox wrote:

>       While it seems fairly obvious that "A player may change the name of
>       this building" was intended to refer only to the "New player" who is
>       the house's owner, it is hardly the only, or even the most obvious,
>       interpretation. "A player" clearly means, in general, any player
>       (subject to other qualifiers which may appear in the specific
>       context).
>
>       Furthermore, "this building" clearly refers to the same building as
>       the "this building" in the previous sentence, which is the building
>       belonging to the new player, and not, say, the building belonging to
>       the player doing the renaming.
>
>       Considering that any of the following phrases:
>
>                  "The player may change the name of this building ..."
>
>                  "E may change the name of this building ..."
>
>                  "A player may change the name of their building ..."
>
>       would have been relatively unambiguous in only allowing a player to
>       rename the building that was given to them, the rule as it stands
>       must be understood as giving any player the ability to rename any
>       building that was bequeathed to anyone by this rule.

A statement that I fully agree with, and a conclusion that I would have arrived at on my own, had I not had breadbox's excellent legal work already laid out for me.

I believe the rules allow, albiet unintentionally, for Mohammed to change the name of Niccolo Flychuck's house, and am therefore returning a verdict of FALSE on CFJ 351.

Call For Judgement 352 - Sun, 16 Mar 1997 23:07:26 -0500
Subject: Renaming Houses III
Initiator: Mohammed
Judge: Robert Sevin (selected Mar 08, 1997, 22:13h EST) (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: breadbox (selected Mar 08, 1997, 23:14h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

A player may rename another player's home.

[none provided]

Rule 252 states:

> 1) The New player is granted 1 kaa of urban land and a Small building
> thereupon as their legal residence. This building shall be known as
> their Home. This building shall also be known as "player name's
> House", where "player name" is replaced by their official Ackanomic
> name. A player may change the name of this building by publically
> announcing the new name and unambiguously identifying the building
> they wish to rename.

While it seems fairly obvious that "A player may change the name of
this building" was intended to refer only to the "New player" who is
the house's owner, it is hardly the only, or even the most obvious,
interpretation. "A player" clearly means, in general, any player
(subject to other qualifiers which may appear in the specific
context).

Furthermore, "this building" clearly refers to the same building as
the "this building" in the previous sentence, which is the building
belonging to the new player, and not, say, the building belonging to
the player doing the renaming.

Considering that any of the following phrases:

    "The player may change the name of this building ..."

    "E may change the name of this building ..."

    "A player may change the name of their building ..."

would have been relatively unambiguous in only allowing a player to
rename the building that was given to them, the rule as it stands
must be understood as giving any player the ability to rename any
building that was bequeathed to anyone by this rule.

Call For Judgement 353 - Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:53:46 -0500
Subject: Checking the Party Chess Rules
Initiator: Mohammed
Judge: Malenkai (selected Mar 16, 1997, 23:12h EST) Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

In PartyChess, no Swinger can be checked under the current rules.

It comes right out of the rules:

Rule 1230.2, section 3. D. (i):

> A Swinger is in Check when his King is attacked by one or more
> opposing pieces.

Rule 1230.2, section 3. A. iii.:

> A piece (1) is attacking opposing piece (2) if and only if they
> are located on the board such that if it were (1)'s Swinger's turn to
> move, he could capture piece (2) with piece (1).

Rule 1230.4 (Creation of a PartyChessPiece King), section G.:

> A King can be neither purchased nor captured.

The play log on Niccolo Flychuck's Party Chess WWW page doesn't seem to indicate that anyone has ever been checked.

By rule 1230.1, section 3F, and rule 1230.4, section H, the rule which defines the King piece is a PartyChessPieceDef rule, thus the King is a PartyChessPiece.

Rule 1230.1, section 4A defines conditions under which a PartyChessPiece may be captured. R 1230.4, section G, stipulates that a King may not be captured. Since a King is a PartyChessPiece, it falls under the general governance of rule 1230.1, which stipulates that it has precedence over all PartyChessPieceDef rules (thus including 1230.4), except where it explicitly defers.

R 1230.1 explicitly defers in regards to the way PCPD rules may define alternate ways to capture, but does not do so in regards to alternate definitions of being captured, therefore rule 1230.1 has precedence, and the King can be captured (see sections 3F and 3C), as long as it is possible for there to be 2 or more Swingers, a game in progress, one Swinger to have 1 on-board non-King, and one other Swinger to have an on-board King.

I find these enabling conditions possible under the current rules, assuming 'Swinger' and the game of party chess is rendered in the theoretical case as opposed to the case of the current game and current Swingers (which I did not analyize for this possibility). I justify this rendering by the wording of the statement with 'In Party Chess', and 'current rules'. Had the current game or Swingers been meant, it is clear that the initiator would have used the qualifier 'current'.

Rule 1230.2, section 3D defines the conditions under which a Swinger is in check. Those conditions are possible, hence a judgement of FALSE.

Call For Judgement 354 - Tue, 18 Mar 1997 01:26:13 -0500
Subject: Keys
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected Mar 22, 1997, 22:27h EST)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

It is a Crime to bury the Keys defined in R 222 as a Treasure.

R 222 says:

> After initial distribution, each Player shall either redistribute
> eir Key(s) to another eligible Player as outlined in this Rule, or
> the Key(s) shall be responsible for the respective actions taken
> against that Player as outlined below.

The rule specifies the way in which the Keys may be disposed of.
Burying them a Treasure is not one of them.  The rule has precedence
over the Treasure rule, therefore it is a breaking of the rules to
bury them, hence a Crime.

The quoted passage also appears to enable giving a Key to any player
eligible to receive it, as snowgod attempted to do, thus snowgod's
action was probably legal, as this rule has precedence over the
Tradeable stuff as well.  Sorry about that snowgod.  Oh well, I
guess the CFJ should have been called.

What a mess.  If this CFJ is judged TRUE, Narf's burial would still
hold (but be a crime), due to the non-retractable error thing.  If it
is judged TRUE before Mar 23rd, snowgod's burial will be undone.  More
ugliness is that if it is found that snowgod's transfer to /dev/joe
is legal, we would be in the thread where it was eating /dev/joe's
gadgets, and he could do nothing about it.  That doesn't seem fair.

If it is judged FALSE, but still found that snowgod's transfer to
/dev/joe was legal (a possible case), we have the problem case above.

Note that this CFJ does not assert the legality of snowgod's 
attempted trannsfer.  Hopefully the judge can sort all this out.

As Malenkai outline above from his quote from that same rule, redistribution after the _initial_ distribution is allowed so long as it is passed on to an eligible player. He then goes on to say that the rule details ways to dispose of the keys and that burying is not one of them, hence that is a crime.

Let's take a look at R1217 which explains who can find a treasure:

>Upon a player (who is not a map custodian with respect to the map in question)
>achieving the conditions for finding buried Treasure as specified by a Treasure
>Map, it is a duty of the map writer or a map custodian (if any exist) tomake this
>fact, and the map, public (once they become aware of the condition being
>achieved, and final act that lead to the condition being achieved is publically
>knowable). This action destroys the map, and the player who achieved the
>conditions receives the Treasure, and thus becomes the owner of its
>constituent entities (which are no longer considered "Treasure").

So there is only person that is not allowed to find a treasure and that is the map custodian. Indeed, even the person who wrote the map (as the rule goes on to explain) can find the treasure. R222 has different criteria to decide who is eligible to receive a key or not, which means that a buried Key could potentially be found by players who do not qualify. For example, non-voting players, players who do not own the right objects, etc, as outlined by R222.

Let us note, in R222 paragraph 4, sentence 4 which reads:

>Any Player possessing one or more Keys may attempt to give a Key to
>a non-eligible Player, but that Key shall be immediately returned to the
>Goose, and that Player shall no longer be eligible to receive any Keys
>for the duration of the Cycle.

Since burying a Key is not a certain way to transfer the Key to an eligible player, it can be construed to be an attempt at giving it to a non-eligible player. In fact, by burying a Key the player knows that not just players who are eligible could now get it.

This means that although burying a Key is neither expressively allowed nor disallowed by R222, it is covered by the sentence quoted as an _attempt_ to give the Key to a non-eligible player. This means it is not a Crime to bury a Key (since a player _may_ attempt). The effect is as outlined: the Key is returned to the Goose and the player who buried (or rather attempted to bury) the Key may not receive any more keys for the duration of this Cycle.

Call For Judgement 355 - Thu, 20 Mar 1997 02:01:30 -0500
Subject: Invalid Proposals
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: fnord (selected Mar 17, 1997, 23:13h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Proposals 1807 thru 1839, inclusive, are invalid.

Examination of the headers shows 1806 was distributed before any of those numbered higher.

Rule 309 clearly indicates that a proposal would be invalid if it is substantially similar to a previous proposal. Looking at the proposals named by this CFJ (1807-1839), they are obviously similar (if not downright copying and pasting). Therefore, I rule TRUE that Proposals 1807 through 1839 are invalid.

Go