There are currently no Pending CFJs.
Name: CFJ #1
1st Judge: " "
2nd Judge: Methian
Status: True
Judged On: Oct 20, 1998
Creater: Frankenstein
Claim:
There is a rule named Rule 111, Cycles and Winning Em that is Immutable and has been since Axiom began.
Creater's Reasoning:
Rule Rule 108, Immutability and Mutability says
>Rules have a characteristic known as mutability, and are either
>"Immutable" or "Mutable".
>
>If rules which have different mutability are in conflict, the
>Mutable rule(s) defer precedence to the Immutable rule(s).
>
>In the instant immeadiately subsequent to the instant that Axiom
>starts, the rules numberd 101-110 are assigned a mutability
>characteristic of "Immutable" and those with the the number 301-
>308 are assigned a mutability characteristic of "Mutable".
No mention is made of Rule 111 in the assignation of the mutability characteristics. I hold that the semantic meaning by which rules give authority extends to include the meaning that was unambiguously intended to be included by them. The numbering of Rule 111, Cycles and Winning Em indicates that it was meant to be Immutable, therefore, by the reasoning I use, it is Immutable.
Judge's Reasoning: None
Name: CFJ #2
1st Judge: Altra
Status: True
Judged On: Oct 19, 1998
Creater: Kane
Claim:
Since " ", in the course of eir duties as Judge, has unambigiously broken the rules regarding judgement procedures (Rule 303, Call For Judgement Procedure), ey is deemed unworthy of this Judgeship, and it is revoked, to be randomly assigned to another player.
Creater's Reasoning: None
Judge's Reasoning: None
Name: CFJ #3
1st Judge: Kane
Status: True
Judged On: Oct 17, 1998
Creater: Frankenstein
Claim:
When rules try to create effects that are not retroactive but are
based on earlier actions then they are successful.
Creater's Reasoning:
I want to see if Prop 4, R111 Fix can be passed
despite " "'s No vote that was taken when Rule 301, Voting Procedures was
in its original form. If this CFJ is true, we could still pass Prop 4, if
not then Prop 4 must be dealt with under the old rules.
Judges Reasoning:
I am unclear on what exactly the claim of this CFJ is. How can an effect
*not* be based on earlier actions? Furthermore, I do not see how there is
any question that it is the new version of Rule 301, Voting Procedures
that will be taking effect when the votes for Prop 4, R111 Fix are
tallyed at 00:00 on Oct 23, 1998. There will be no question of conflict
between new and old versions of Rule 301 because at this point in time
(which is in the future, so there is no question of retroactive or
retroactive-like effects) the old version will not exist in the rule set,
and therefore will, by definition, have no authority.
To summarize, I rule that the claim is almost tautologically true, though I do not see its relevence to the fact that it is the new version of Rule 301, Voting Procedures that will be used at 00:00 on Oct 23, 1998.
Name: CFJ #4
1st Judge: Methian
1st Judge's Ruling: True
Judged On: Oct 25, 1998
Appealed By: " "
Appelate Judge: Kane
Status: Invalid
Creater: Macalypse
Claim:
Correct and clarify rule 109, proposals by replacing the UNACCEPTABLE
delimited text with the NOLPBCAMPERBOTBITCHESINRULE109 delimited text:
UNACCEPTABLE
When a propsal is created by a citizen's act, it is automatically Active.
UNACCEPTABLE
NOLPBCAMPERBOTBITCHESINRULE109
When a proposal is created by a citizen's act, it is automatically Active.
NOLPBCAMPERBOTBITCHESINRULE109
Creater's Reasoning: None
Judge's Reasoning:
I accept this and rule true Because:
"propsal" is not defined in the rules, and is semantically meant to be
"proposal"
This is not a modification of the ruleset, merely a semantic clarification.
Appealer's Reasoning:
YOU MORON! READ THE FUCKING CFJ RULE!
Appelate Judge's Reasoning:
I must rule this CFJ invalid because does not give a statement to be ruled
true or false, but rather lays down a course of action. This CFJ should
probably have had the following WOULDHAVESAVEDALOTOFTROUBLE delimited text,
which I now present as CFJ #7.
Name: CFJ #5
1st Judge: Altra
1st Judge's Ruling: True
Judged On: Oct 25, 1998
Appealed By: Macalypse
Appelate Judge: Kane
Status: True
Creater: " "
Claim:
CFJ's do not have the power to modify the ruleset.
Creater's Reasoning: None.
Judge's Reasoning:
I rule this true cause its part of the ruleset.
Appealer's Reasoning: None.
Appelate Judge's Reasoning:
I cannot point to explicit Rules which clearly justify my verdict, so I
will resort to the elusive "spirit of the game". To me, it seems that any
rule in Axiom has the implicit clause "This rule, as herein described, is a
rule of Axiom." By this I mean that the rule, as identified by its
semantic meaning (as opposed to its Rule X,Y style label) asserts, with the
power granted by Rule 101, Introduction, its own authority. If some action
successfully contradicts this clause, by, for example, denying that that
particular clump of semantic meaning which is the rule in question has
authority, and asserting that another clump of semantic meaning (the
modification of the original rule) will be given the same label as the
original clump (rule) and will take the original clump's authority, then
that action must have as the source of its authority a rule which describes
that action as taking precedence over the original rule (the rule which is
being modified) and its clump of semantic meaning. In this case
"precedence" means the ability to override or deny a clause of the rule in
question, namely the implicit clause described at the beginning of this
paragraph. Since CFJ's (Rule 305, The Disposition of CFJ's) do not have
the authority to override or deny the authority of a rule or the clause of
a rule, CFJ's cannot modify a rule, as described above.
Some might point out that, in my reasoning, I have made the very dangerous
supposition that Rules have implicit clauses which have real authority. I
will attempt to assuage all fears by noting that 1)A judges reasoning in a
CFJ is irrelevant to game play, and 2) The specific implicit clause cited,
"This rule, as herein described, is a rule of Axiom", seems, to me at
least, to be pretty non-controversial.
Name: CFJ #6
1st Judge: Kane
Judged On: Oct 25, 1998
Status: True
Creater: " "
Claim:
When a word is misspelled in an unambiguous way in the ruleset or in any
CFJ, it has the same meaning as the correctly spelled version.
Creater's Reasoning: None.
Judge's Reasoning: None.
Name: CFJ #7
1st Judge: " "
Judged On: Oct 26, 1998
Status: False
Creater: Kane
Claim:
The sentence "When a proposal is created by a citizen's act, it is
automatically Active," in Rule 109, Proposals has an identical semantic
meaning to the sentence "When a proposal is created by a citizen's act, it
is automatically Active."
Creater's Reasoning:
This is clearly what was intended at the rule's inception.
Judge's Reasoning:
First of all, there is no REAL semantic problem here, in the period versus
comma. Second of all, Rule 109, Proposals, actually says:
"When a propsal is created by a citizen's act, it is automatically Active."
The difference is not the punctuation, but rather the omission of the letter "o" from the word proposal. Since Kane's CFJ refers to a sentence "in Rule 109" which is not actually in rule 109, it is obviously not TRUE. I am thus faced with an interesting dilemma. Do I rule this FALSE or INVALID?
The CFJ rule (303) says:
If a CFJ fails the above criteria [for TRUE] and it seems that the CFJ may not have been properly formed when created, the Judge shall rule it to be Invalid.
However, it seems to me that the CFJ was properly formed, in that Kane's statement could be ruled TRUE or FALSE.
so my ruling on this CFJ is FALSE
Name: CFJ #8
1st Judge: Macalypse
1st Judge's Ruling: False
Judged On: Oct 26, 1998
Appealed By: Frankenstein
Appelate Judge: " "
Status: False
Creater: Frankenstein
Claim:
If more than one proposal takes seems to take effect in a given instant
where the timine is difficult to determine (as will be the case in the
instant after P5 passes) then those props with lower numbers associated
with them are determinable to come earlier.
Creater's Reasoning:
I believe the applicable rule is Rule 106, Chronology which says in part:
"Every action occurs at one distinct point in time. If two or more logically contradictory actions seem to have occured simultaneously, with no observable way to determine which came first, both actions fail to occur.
The occurence of an action is considered to affect whatever entities are indicated by the action. Actions which would happen subsequent to this, only occur if the state produced by the set of all entities logically permits it."
Now, the easy way to determine this up till now has been email timestamp. We're now dealing with a rule generated event which has no timestamp. I propose this as an arbitrary solution (which has the added benefit of encouraging Props with the lowest possible number to be created) which I think may end up being helpful.
Judge's Reasoning:
i believe that such an event as described in the claim is covered under
rule 107, precedence:
"If a contradiction is determined to exist in the rules such that two or more phenomena are described which are legally mutually exclusive, then, in that particular instance, the following procedure shall be undertaken: The rule which is refered to by a unique (among all rules) integer that is of the lowest value of the rules in question shall take precedence.
If any other procedure is indicated by the rules for determining which rule takes precedence, then that procedure is used."
therefore, i believe that the rule number associated with the proposal (be it either created or amended) will determine precedence. if two or more rules (either new or newly amended, or any combination of such) take effect simultaneously, and they conflict, then precedence should be given to any rule(s) with lower numbers associated with them. basically i agree with you, except that the rule number should be the basis for determining precedence, not the proposal number.
Appealer's Reasoning:
Basically, I think there was a misunderstanding of the concept of
precedence. As I read R107, it says that if one rule says A and another
(higher numbered) says ~A then the we are to act as if A were true. In
this case rules generate authority for stuff to happen, so FOR PRECEDENCE
we are to analyze THE AUTHORITY by which things happen, not THE TARGET of
those things.
Precedence is distinct from timing, in that timing specifies what actually occured and precedence what is authorized to occur in the future. Precedence and timing are related to the degree that in order to know what is now permitted, we must know the state of the ruleset and how it got that way.
Additionally, I think that the idea that precedence (or timing) springs from the importance of the target, not the validity of the authority is a bad idea to promote. Imagine I wanted a strong prop: I have it create then repeal a rule numbered 1 then do other stuff. This would (by Macalypse's reasoning) ensure the strength of the prop.
That said, let's proceed to the actual issue: How to resolve timing issues with no associated timestamp.
I hold an easily determinable method of timing determination is simply by using the lowest prop number. That is what I've said in the claim. There are no rules on how to do this determination, so it is simply a matter of whether or not the Appelate judge thinks the CFJ's claim is a good enough idea to make it part of custom/the spirit of Axiom.
Appelate Judge's Reasoning:
This is bad logic. (Harfer's Note: The Judge's Reasoning is being referenced)
The question is not which proposal takes precedence,
but rather whether a proposal goes into effect before other proposals do.
Now, to decide on this, I must look to:
1) All the statements claimed in the CFJ are true with respect to the
rules, and
2) All the statements claimed in the CFJ are true with respect to the state
of all entities, and
3) All the statements claimed in the CFJ are consistent with each other, or
4) All the statements claimed in the CFJ are consistent with each other,
indeterminately true with respect to the rules and to the state of all
entities, and in accordance with logic, the spirit of Axiom, and game custom.
#1 fails. There is no current rule-based way to answer this question.
so we look to #4.
There is only one statement, which is self-consistent
The statement is in accordance with logic
The statement is definitely in accordance with the spirit of Axiom
The statement seems to be fairly close to game custom
HOWEVER!!!!!
The statement, because of poor wording, is NOT indeterimately true with respect to the rules. If the statement said
"those props with lower numbers associated with them come earlier."
it would be true. However, the statement says,
"those props with lower numbers associated with them are determinable to come earlier."
This is not indeterminately true with respect to the rules, but is rather patently UNtrue with respect to the rules. Can the rules be used to determine which prop comes earlier? NO!
So, regretfully, I must rule, for entirely different reasons,
FALSE
Name: CFJ #9
1st Judge: " "
Judged On: Oct 27, 1998
Status: True
Creater: Frankenstein
Claim:
Actions must be specified individually, not as a batch.
Creater's Reasoning:
I hate Gabe and will hurt him (in a rules defined manner) once I can.
:)
If this is not ruled True I stop harfing the game (or at least Gabe's proposals).
Judge's Reasoning: None.
Name: CFJ #10
1st Judge: NotToniteJosephine
Defaulted On: ??
Status: Undecided
Creater: Gödel
Claim:
Mercury's attempt to trade energy AWAY from goatbear did not succeed.
Creater's Reasoning:
The applicable rule:
>Rule 411, Energy Trading
>Status: Mutable
>
>If two citizens are adjacent, then one can give the other energy
>by destroying one of their Oomphs and indicating the non
^^^^^
>negative amount which they are trasfering to the other. At no
>time may any citizen have less than zero Oomphs due to such a
>trasfer.
I think the confusion occurs when we try to figure out which player "their" refers to. If you look at the greater context of the sentence, you can see that it says: (paraphrased) the giver does so by: destroying Oomphs, then saying how many were destroyed which is the amount the _giver_ is parting with. Given that the end of the sentence refers to the giver it is reasonable to assume that is the giver who the "their" in the same sentence refers to, as well.
Judge's Reasoning: None
Name: CFJ #11
1st Judge: NotToniteJosephine
Defaulted On: ??
Status: Undecided
Creater: goatbear
Claim:
prop 5000 passed a while ago, except that tom hasn't been counting
dieter's votes. Razorwing originally was for it, and then dieter voted
for it, and then nottonightjosephine voted for it (5 players out of 9,
me, dieter, razorwing, mercury). only AFTER that point did razorwing
change his vote to no. so prop 5000 did in fact pass already.
Creater's Reasoning:
dieter called my attention to it and then i examined the voting records and discovered that it had, in fact, passed.
Judge's Reasoning: None
Last Updated: 3/21/2000 11:00pm PST
Author: Jennifer Mueller
If you're wonder whether the game is still going, message me at mueller4@sonic.net