Radio Free Nomic
CFJs 101 - 150

Statement -

Rule 221 is wholly void and without effect.

The reasoning behind this is that R114 says that voters may only vote within the prescribed voting period, and R221 says that Electric Ants vote "when the prescribed voting period on a proposal has elapsed". So Electric Ants will always abstain on proposals where all players have not voted.
I don't know that this is an actual inconsistency; it may be that they will just be deemed to have abstained.

Rule 221 is not "wholly" without effect because the electric ants can still vote if all players vote within the prescribed voting period.  If, on the other hand, the prescribed voting period elapses without all players having voted I deem it in accordance with the letter of the rules that electric ants should be deemed to have abstained until such time as this rule is altered (which I reccomend).

Statement -

The speaker may (for the purposes of clarity) insert a comma between the words "enactment" and "repeal" in rule 103 part (1).  This does not constitute a change in the rules and this statement does not constitute a proposal in so far as there is no such thing as an "enactment repeal".

The comma appears to make little difference in the rule, except to clarify it so fair enough (Although Head I think that was rather pedantic)

Statement

     I believe that the result of proposal 305 should be declared void as the manner in which the electric ants voted is not in accordance with r204, which has a lower ordinance number than r221 (re: my most recent proposal amending r204 and the comment succeeding it). Rule 305 should therefore not have been adopted.      (A further 4 votes against the proposal would have taken the no. of voters up to 14 and less than 2/3 of the votes would have been for, as a result seeing the proposal rejected.)      The player known as Q took his name as a result of r305. Should 305 be shown to be void then no player Q could justifiably exist, therefore all proposals submitted by him should be discounted, and wholly rejected, as Q is not a player. A judgement to this effect would not contradict r106 as "Judgements are not rules" (r216) This would also see any points gained by Q eliminated from his previous named incarnation.

The statement in this CFJ (which was a little unclear) was essentially that p305 was not adopted, as the Electric Ants do not vote in accordance with r204.

Rule 204 states "Each Voter has exactly one vote." Since r221 states that EAs are voters, they have exactly one vote each.

Rule 221 states that 10-(number of players) EAs will vote on each proposal, and whether each of these vote for, vote against, or abstain is to be randomly determined. JAMES argues that  the (currently 4) EAs who do not vote, are somehow unable to do so. This is not the case. R221 states that n EAs _will_ vote, not _can_ vote.

By rule 114, "Voters who do not vote within the prescribed period shall be deemed to have abstained." So the 4 EAs who do not vote (as well as any who are randomly determined to have abstained) abstain.

To further address the argument that they are unable to vote, rather than simply not doing so, consider the case where all players leave the game. If there are any proposals pending, then all EAs will attempt to vote on that proposal; they are able to vote.

"Having" one vote is not the same as _casting_ one vote. I have one vote on all proposals; if I abstain on one proposal, I still have a vote, I simply do not cast it. If I abstain involuntarily (because my computer breaks down, or whatever) then I still have one vote, although I cannot cast it.

Statement

The rules on points do not specify who gains the five points resulting after a failed proposal. It merely states players. Surely under the strict interpretation of the rules this means that since the introduction of the rule granting these five points any player who votes for his own failed proposal should also gain five?

The reasoning for this appears to be lost in the mists of time. However, was pointed out that this was, in fact, what was being done with scores.

Statement

If proposal 375 passes, all players will immediately receive 25 Donuts.

My reasoning is that it doesn't specifically specify when Donuts are gained, so it would seem most reasonable to assume that it is each 4 week period, starting when the rule is created. But I'm not really sure.

The proposal itself makes to claim to associated with any temporal notions within the game, hence time, and therefore four week periods, must be regarded as being distinct from this proposal. I cite the example of banks who pay annual interest on accounts. This is paid on a fixed date to all customers, regardless of the date upon which the account was opened. The first four week period began at 1700 GMT on 12/02/98, and the next shall begin at 1700 GMT on 12/03/98. If the proposal has passed by then I believe that is when the first payment should be made, otherwise it will be on the 09/04/98 at 1700GMT

Statement

If they do so before the end of the voting period, and before all other players have cast their votes, a player may change their vote.

We know that
"Voters may vote either for or against any proposal during the prescribed voting period. Citizens should send their vote by electronic mail to the Speaker before the end of the voting period. Voters who do not vote within the prescribed period shall be deemed to have abstained."
And
"Each Voter has exactly one vote."

I would argue that "one vote" does not mean "one message in which they can vote", but rather "one vote which may be cast in any way". So that if they vote for something, and then later (before the end of voting) change their vote, it is still only one vote (the vote it was changed to) when the voting results are tallied. Maybe. ;-)

Not only is this a good idea, but I believe the rules do not explicitly prohibit it.

Statement

Erm, I really do hope I'm reading this wrong look at rules 103 / 104

They specify what a rule change is, and when a proposal is adopted, Note it doesn't state that a rule change is an adopted proposal. Quite an important distinction that Head had removed but none of us noticed.

Now look at rule 106 - when a proposal takes effect. It says a rule change takes effect whenever either all the players vote, or the voting period elapses. It doesn't say and when the proposal has passed/been adopted. (in the original it specified a rule change was an adopted proposal)

In effect regardless of the proposals sucess/failure it should still take effect!

Consequently any previously failed rule changes should be in effect and must be implemented. As per the rules of the game- so even though later rules may remove points from the player they dont stop his failed proposal working.

One of you lot better come up with something to sort this cock-up out.

>Erm, I really do hope I'm reading this wrong look at rules 103 / 104
>
>They specify what a rule change is, and when a proposal is adopted,
>
>Note it doesn't state that a rule change is an adopted proposal. Quite an
>important distinction that Head had removed but none of us noticed.
I first note that Head (BF) has removed nothing from these rules. The only difference from the initial rules in rules 103/4 is that R103 has been altered to take account of the loss of immutability.

>Now look at rule 106 - when a proposal takes effect. It says a rule change
>takes effect whenever either all the players vote, or the voting period
>elapses. It doesn't say and when the proposal has passed/been adopted. >(in
the original it specified a rule change was an adopted proposal)
Again, I note that R106 has not, in fact, been amended since the start of the game (except that it is no longer immutable). Not that this means the CFJ is false, just that, if true, then all rejected proposals from the start of the game should be in effect.

>In effect regardless of the proposals sucess/failure it should still take
>effect!

As I think I have said before, the rules use the word "proposal" interchangeably with the phrase "proposed rule change". They do not say that a proposal is a proposed rule change; they use proposal as an abbreviation of proposed rule change.

Rule 106 says "rule change", _not_ "proposed rule change". These are two different thing - a rule change is a proposed rule change which has been adopted, as per R104. So I am judging this false.

Statement

Black Francis has won the game and is the new speaker.

at some time in the passing of recent proposals I had exactly 100 points, thus acheiving the winning conditions.  Subsequently a new game begins and I am speaker.

I find the propositon to be true; for the folowing reasons.

1. The rules merely state that a player must achieve a score of 100, they do not state that only a score of a hundred constitutes winning the game, as a consequence (and taken in general custom) any score going above 100 constitutes 'achieving' a score of 100.

2. Equally it then becomes immaterial whether or not (as the question appears to be) if scorechanges are simultaneous, in this case I believe the answer is that they are. In effect any changes to exixsting rules happen concurrently and the cumulative effect is what matters. As by both Q's and BF's admission the score changes placed BF over a hundred (whether one at a time or simultaneously) and so counts.

Statement

I believe that as "each name must be unique" and "rules must be named" this proposal should it pass [402 -Q] and r389 are invalid as r331 takes precedence over both of them.

Statement

Q is the Speaker.

This CFJ only exists if Q is the speaker. If I am to judge it I must therefore judge it on that basis, and if Q is the speaker then the statement comprising this CFJ: Q is the speaker; is quite obviously true.

Statement

No further play is possible

If we take 100 points to mean 100+ points, then Q won the first game, a second game started without the scores being reset. Thus Q instantaneously won the second game. This continues ad infinitum and as any proposal distributed will have been distributed for a game, an infinite number of game's ago it should not be considered valid.

A few points:
i) This only applies if Q is the speaker of a second game, subject to the reasoning of Park's judgement, so BF, please ignore this as if you were to distribute it the only possible outcome would be False.
ii) Clearly this is mad, insane nonsense as Q has never won any game of RFN, but there is a 1 in 4 chance GBS1 will judge this and he can hardly disagree, as I am using his reasoning.
iii) Should this be found to be true it would solve all disputes to the game state pertaining to Q being speaker. It is my hope that BF would then, in "his game" invoke r115, give me exactly 100 points, which would, following existing "game" custom, end the game with me the winner. I would then have won both games and whichever was the genuine would be irrelevant, as to all intents and purposes they would be indistinguishable, so long as no proposals had passed in either game. We could then amicably agree whether we wanted Q or BF to be speaker, change their score accordingly, and everything would be back to normal. I hope.

Statement

The Donut Warehouse will make its first payment of Donuts at 1700 BST, rather than 1700 GMT, on the 9th of April.

We know from the reasoning on JC's verdict on CFJ (which is implicit Game Custom) that the Donut Warehouse will pay out at the start of each 4 week period since the start of the game. Since "week" is a calendar term, I think we should go by the calendar as far as time goes.

the rule does not state when the payment is to be made on the day, and for the sake of simplicity ( and the game custom  laid down in JC's CFJ)
This should be kept as GMT

Statement

The verdict initially returned on CFJ 112 was not correct.

First of all, this statement, namely "the verdict initially returned on CFJ 112 was not correct", is unclear.  Under the rules I believe a CFJ can only be incorrect if it is not in accordance with the rules then in effect, but i do not believe was Q's intended meaning. Therefore I have made a decision on this CFJ which I feel will most benefit the game in the domain of Game Custom.  The question is, "will the Donut Warehouse make its first payment of Donuts at 1700 BST, rather than 1700 GMT, on the 9th of April ?".  GBS1 is correct in thinking that GMT was implicit game custom from Jesus Christ's judgement, but having spoken to Jesus he did not intend GMT to be an important part of his argument and did not consider it to be a problem.  GBS1 is wrong when he says that GMT will make things easier, because we will have to keep calculating it and inevitably mistakes will be made.  (Yes we're that stupid.)  Also Q raises the point that Game Custom for the timing of proposals is already in BST. Therefore, in choosing between Jesus Christ's unintentional use of GMT and the explicit use we already make of BST, I think the latter takes precedence.  I do not intend this judgement as an attack on any player's reasoning, I have judged True merely to keep confusion to a minimum and hopefully finally resolve this issue.

Statement

Rule 389 is not defined as (D'oh!).

Rule 389 states: "A rule shall be defined as (insane dribble) or if it is this rule shall be defined as (D'oh!) only if it fulfills at least one of the following major criteria :"

and then lists some criteria. Rule 389 meets major criteria 2 and 4.

However, this does not mean that rule 389 is (D'oh!). The first sentence sets out a restriction on which rules may be defined as (insane dribble) or (D'oh!), but it does not state that rules which meet the restrictions will be so defined.

If the rule said "if and only if", then it would work in the intended way, but because it says "only if", it does not.

I have my reasons and they're not what you think...

Statement

The player known as Q (real name Gavin Doig) has 5 distinct memberships in the society called The Evil Dictators Union.  As such that society is eligible to vote, in so far as it has more than three members.

Statement

It appears to be equally legal and illegal to define certain types of rule as shrines.

Rule 386 specifies 2 conditions which would allow a rule to be defined as a shrine on its creation. The second is easily attainable.

The first, however, is problematic. It states:
"(1) It makes no change to the rules or game play other than its existence as a rule"
However, a rule being capable of being defined as a shrine makes a change to the rules and/or game play.

So if a rule would otherwise make no difference to the rules or game play, and it fulfils the second condition, then it will be possible to define it as a shrine, which will be a change to the rules/game play, which will mean the rule may not be defined as a shrine, which will mean that it makes no change to the rules/game play, which will mean it is possible to define it as a shrine, which...

So it appears equally legal and illegal to define such a rule as a shrine.

Ah.... a lovely problem. Certainly no change is made to the rules (the written text) by making a rule a shrine so we must look at game play. Game play is not defined in the rules so individuals may define it different ways so to some people it may appear equally legal and illegal and to others it may not. To me, on my interpretation of the phrase game play, it does not appear so but it is not possible for me to speak with any certainty about the absolute views of others [note to BF - this would apply even in a solipsistic or duopsistic system]. As the only circumstances I could have reached a decision other than the one above were if myself thought the action of creating a shrine was both equally legal and illegal, I, unfortunately, have no choice but to get a sore arse. (I chose an iron railing fence upon which to sit).

Statement

A message sent by e-mail over a mailing or distribution list, or sent out more than once for the purposes of RFN should be considered as n different messages where n is the number of people on the mailing/distribution list or the number of times the message was sent.

i do not believe this is a valid CFJ.  it does not seem to have any bearing on the rules or their interpretation.  however, if it is perhaps Jesus would like to make clear what kind of effect he thinks a decision on this will have on the game.  this is not an attack, i just feel that your intentions are unclear.

Statement

CFJ 115 was judged False by bacon.

At Mon, 11 May 1998 18:35:00 bacon sent a message with the subject "Re: RFN: CFJ 115" in which he put forth some reasoning (indicating a True verdict) on CFJ 115. He did not, however, make a judgement in that message.

At Mon, 11 May 1998 19:07:01 bacon sent a message with the subject "Re: RFN: CFJ 115" in which he gave a verdict of False.

At Mon, 11 May 1998 19:07:25 bacon sent a message with the subject "Re: RFN: CFJ 115" in which he gave a verdict of True.

At Mon, 11 May 1998 19:08:43 bacon sent a message with the subject "(Fwd) Re: RFN: CFJ 115 THE TRUTH" in which he confirmed his verdict of True.

I believe that, since the first message with a verdict gave a verdict of False, that is the verdict that was returned.

NB: All times come from the headers of the messages, which I can forward to the judge if need be.

FALSE-----cause-------i judged CFJ115 FALSE also by the way

Statement -

Q has won the Major Cycle of the Surfer Rosa

Jesus Christ does not specify the circumstances under which Q might have won the game, so I must tackle all the attempts that Q has made to win.

First of all, Q attempted to win by paradox with the following statement :

"It appears to be equally legal and illegal to define certain types of rule as
shrines."

Jesus Christ delivered a judgement of Undecided on this so it falls to me indirectly to decide whether this is true or not. What Q asserts as far as I can see, is that if any shrine X exists, it necessarily has an effect on the game state because its existence allows for it to be defined as a shrine. I have two objections to this. Firstly, it is not the shrine itself which affects the game state - it is rule 386. The game state is "actively" altered by rule 386 whereas shrine X is "inactive", no part of it infringes upon the game state. Secondly, if my first argument is false, what does shrine X do ? By its existence, shrine X allows itself to be defined as a shrine. However, rule 386 specifically says "(1) It makes no change to the rules or game play other than its existence as a rule". So, I contend that any effect arising from the existence of shrine X is permissable. (As creator of rule 386 I can also make clear that it was my intention for this rule to work in this way, thus this conforms with the "spirit" of the rule.) Subsequently, I believe Q's statement to be false.

Secondly, Q attempted to win by issuing the following statement : rules, only scores, and there is no explicit connection made between scores and points, I win the major cycle."

Again, I have two objections to this attempt. Firstly, if we assume Q is correct and there is no connection between "points" and "scores", he obviously does not win the major cycle because rule 209 states : "The winner of the present Major Cycle is the first player to acheive a score of over 500 points." and since he wishes to maintain, as I see it, that he has 10000 more points but his score has not changed, he cannot win because his score is not over 500.

Secondly, and more importantly in my opinion, there is the question of whether points and score are semantically one and the same. As I see it, it has been our Custom to incorporate standard linguistic usage in our rules and interpret them thus. In my dictionary, the first definition of score is "a number of points" thus I deem them to be semantically interchangeable. Of course, this is not entirely the case. Language is often fluid and full of connotation. Yet, Wittgenstein claims that any language with a sufficient "richness" of vocabulary cannot create a flawless system of rules. It seems to me that a great deal of leniency is called for in our semantic interpretations. It is not my desire to be a player in a game which is governed by strict, logical, absolute values. I see Nomic as being a game which allows for creativity and full expression in rule creation and is not to have its grounding in the English language actively abused. The "spirit" of the initial rule set is similiar to the spirit of the American Constitution, which allows for different opinion on a subject and subsequently allows for changes to be implemented. It is not necessary for players to intentionally cause argument but rather to voice their honest opinion on rule interpretation and allow for clarification, firstly through rule changes, secondly through CFJ's.

Statement

The legality of a player entering the Zone "Atlantis", owned by Head, cannot be determined with finality.

On Sat, 1 Aug 1998 at 14:36:52 -0000, or thenabouts, Head posted a message to the mailing list, with the subject "Just a conspiracy of cartographers". In that message, he renamed his Zone at (6,9) to "Atlantis", and changed its entry requirements, but did not disclose what those entry requirements were. Therefore, it is now impossible to determine with finality whether any player may enter Atlantis.

If Head did legally change the entrance requirements of zone (6,9) we must assume that these requirements do in fact exist in some concrete form. Therefore, if any player attempts to enter zone (6,9), we must also assume that such an action is either legal or illegal in accordance with these requirements.  At present, it is not the duty of any player to reveal the legality of attempted actions, but seems to be the case that any player with appropriate knowledge may do so.  In this case, Head is the only player able to make this determination but nevertheless he can determine it, thus the legality of this action can be determined with finality.

Statement

The legality of defining rule 430 as a shrine cannot be determined with finality.

The result of CFJ 116 would have determined whether or not we would have defined rule 430 as a shrine if the verdict returned had been true or false, but the verdict was undecided.  The only process by which we determine the legality of an action is the CFJ.  Therefore, there is no way to determine the legality of this action with finality.

With finality? Not being omnipotent I really had no other choice. (I think)

Statement

Rule 457 is void.

Rule 457 sets out a procedure by which game mechanics can be used for player transportation.  However, Rule 411 states that "Game Mechanics... have no effects on the game other than their existance".

An argument might be made that r457 has precidence over r411, but r4ll explicitly states that it has precedence over rules dealing with biscuits, and r457 includes the following sentence: "The game mechanics need biscuits to survive."

This seems very like the shrine CFJ I judged earlier, the question is whether their transportation is "an effect on the game effected by the game mechanics". I believe if it were to be so then would the act of the game mechanics altering the rules as outlined in r411. In which case r411 would in fact be void and 457 would indeed have precedence over it as it would not exist.

If transportation is not "aeotgebtgm" then the there is no problem. I am not adressing whether or not it is as I do not believe that is necessary

I do not believe that r411 contains an "action" but just in case I submit the following CFJ. "The legality of altering the rules cannot be determined with finality" (For reasons outlined above)

Statement

The game custom is that time limits are counted in full days (GMT), starting from the first midnight.

Well, at least that's how the real world(tm) works around here. For example, if I receive telephone bill dated january 1 and have 14 days to pay it, I can still pay it january 15th at 23:59:59 without extra fees using online bank account.

This was a little more sticky than I thought it would be.

As our glorious speaker has pointed out, the game's custom has not been to record days in the manner Tic0 put forth.  This would seem to be resolve the dispute and render a false judgement.  However, after careful review of the rules, I have found that they have one glaring omission: the term "game custom" has not been defined.

It would be a major cop-out if I simply stated that game custom states that game custom is that which is customary to the game.  Doing so would simply leave a bad taste in my mouth, as well as force me to put my name behind the rather ridiculous previous sentence.

I, however, think that Tic0's statement violates the spirit of the game. The rules try to cater to people in various situations.  I think that the veggie rules are indicative of that.  If the game were to use GST as it's standard for evaluating days, than players who live in time zones that are drastically different would be put at a disadvantage, at least psychologically, to players who's time changes are less drastic.  For me, the game day would start at 7:00 pm... How much sense would that make?

Statement -

illuminati fnord does not own zone 7,7

illuminati fnord sent the following message:

-----Original Message-----
From: Gavin M. Doig
To: RFN
Date: 22 August 1998 03:16
Subject: RFN: More stuff

>I move to 7,7. If I do not already own it (and, let's face it, I don't) I buy
>this Zone, rename it to "Q" (where double-quotes are delimiters), and
>change its entrance requirements to be the same as all my other >Zones.
>
>if.
>
>

He met the requirement of being the only player in that zone and so this action was successful.

Statement -

The legality of altering the rules cannot be determined with finality

None, but see the Judge's reasoning on CFJ 124.

Rule 411 states that "Whenever the rules call for any alteration in the rules, this alteration will be performed by a Game Mechanic, using his Game Spanner." It also states however, that "Game Mechanics and Game Spanners have no effects on the game other than their existence."

It seems to me that if this first statement were in fact an "effect" on the game then this second statement would negate that effect and rule changes would occur normally.

However, it seems to me that rule alteration is not effected by the game mechanics, it is in fact effected by other rules (those governing proosals and rule changes).

Statement -

As of the time this CFJ was distributed, there was no player of this game whose game name was "Green Blooded Sonuvabitch 2".

Well, P473, submitted by Grimace and thus distributed by the Speaker, illuminati fnord, contained the text "[logicall* logicall* logicall*]", where each * replaces a y. Rule 335 specifies that if any player has used that word more than twice in public messages in the past week, their name is changed to GBSn. Since there is no GBSn at the moment, it would be GBS2.

Neither of the 2 players who may have had their names changed have since changed their names, and by r335 they would immediately have had it changed back even if they had, so we can dismiss that problem.

That leaves (at least) 2 issues here. First, R432 states that any text in [] in a proosal (or rule) has no effect on "the game state or current rules". A change to a player's name is certainly a change to the game state. Would this have sufficient precedence to override r335? I don't think this is as easy to answer as it seems, because it is not exactly a conflict, and it may be that r432 is just defining a way in which the other rules, including r335, operate.

Second, does the text in a proosal count as a public message? I would probably argue that it is not a message sent by the Speaker, because he is merely forwarding the proosal, in much the same way as various mail servers forward mail. I'm less sure as to whether it is a public message by the submitter.

Which still leaves the question of which player had their name changed, but that lies outside the scope of this CFJ.

The first question is whether or not Head sent a public message when he sent his proosal to IF. Basically, as par game custom, there are two types of messages in the game, public messages, sent to the list, and Speaker messages, sent to the speaker. Submitting a proosal is the latter, so, obviously, Head did not "qualify," for lack of a better term, to be renamed GBS2 regardless of whether or not square brackets would have protected him.

The Speaker's rather indignant and shameless defense of himself is worthless. r109 states that he must "publicly distribute the proosal." This fits the public message criteria. The Speaker, however, may still be safe if the squared brackets worked as they were supposed to.

In my judgement the Speaker is not correct when he says that the two rules in question are not in conflict. Look at it this way: If they are not in conflict, and r335 is only "further defined" by r432 than r432 changes the way that r335 works, and simply because this happens we can tell for sure that the two rules are in conflict. I hope that was more clear that it sounded to me.

The point is that the rules have _no_ tolerance for lower precedence rules changing higher precedence rules. None. r335 has precedence over r432 and because of that the Speaker is named GBS2.

Statement -

It can't be decided with finality whether I'm in zone (3,1).

r413 says nothing about notifing other players about changing zones, therefore, like Schrodinger's Cat, I'm both here and there with equal truth.

I looked at the CFJ120 and the same principle applies to this as well. Although the rest of the players don't currently know where CowJason is, he knows and therefore assuming that he is playing according to the rules (as ordered by R101!) we can always determine where everyone is anytime we need to, just by trusting that people tell us correctly where they are whenever that information is required. This applies to any actions and/or information that is not currently public by default.

Statement -

All those players that have to join a Drunken Posse can delay their joining or indication of support for indefinite time period.

It is permitted (by rule 115 at least) to indefinitely delay your "indication of support". However, I think a player immediately joins a Drunken Posse upon its being called.

I have three reasons for this, firstly, it has been a matter of game custom. Secondly, a player does not perform any action to join a Drunken Posse, it is a rule regulated action. Thirdly, the rule itself says: "All non-Vegetable players who are not members of the Supreme Court must _then_ join this Drunken Posse." (emphasis mine) which indicates to me that the timing of this is instantaneous.

The problem I think is with the inclusion of the word "must" in the above sentence which I feel creates the illusion that the player has a choice in this action.

Statement -

As of the time this CFJ was distributed, there was no player of this game whose game name was "illuminati fnord".

We know from the True verdict on CFJ 126 that either Grimace or myself had their name changed; this is just to determine once and for all which it was.

Statement

It appears equally legal and illegal to enter zone (4,3).

Well, it should be obvious. I hope. I could have also constructed a self-referential paradox - like in "I lie" - but I'm trying to do this with style... ;) Since nothing defines which of the two statements is true, the legality of entering the zone cannot be determined.

Statement

It appears equally legal and illegal to enter zone (5,3).

If it's true, then it's not true and vice versa.

Statement

It appears equally legal and illegal to enter zone (5,3).

If it's true, then it's not true and vice versa.

Statement

There exists a rule numbered 3.

When I won the Major Cycle, I made the name of the next cycle:
"X. illuminati fnord may publicly change the rules or game state in any way he sees fit"
If this made the name "X", and added a sentence to the rules, then my attempt to create a rule numbered 3 succeeded. If this just made a long name with no game effect, it didn't.

The full quoted string which illuminati fnord chose as a name for the next cycle was definitely entirely a name, this much seems clear from rule 110 itself. There are two problems though, first of all, can names have the semantic meaning the corresponding text would have when placed in rules? Second of all, does this text when placed in a rule fall under the domain of standard linguistic interpretation?

The answer to the first question seems to be yes since the rules for names do not specifically say that names have no semantic meaning.

The second question I feel must also be answered yes because it has been a strong part of our game custom to interpret rules as they are written.

This sets up a slight paradox over the name of the current cycle. I believe what happened was that illuminati fnord chose the name "X. illuminati fnord may publicly change the rules or game state in any way he sees fit" but when this
text was transferred to the rule set, semantic interpretation took over and the name became "X".

Statement -

It is both legal and illegal to enter zone (5,2).

I guess my point has become obvious, but this one is different as it depends on the entity trying to enter rather than on some artificial logic. [But I still expect that my previous attempts should suffice even though I'm doing this one as well.]

Statement -

The last sentence of rule 452 contains the phrase "eligible to vote".

If my attempt to permit myself to remove that sentence succeeded, the phrase will not be there. Otherwise, it will.

I believe that the the phrase "this rule" in the last sentence of rule 452 refers to rule 452 itself. Therefore, this sentence maintains that rule 452 refers to all voters. Which indeed it does. This does not mean that players are rules or have any ability to permit rule changes.

Statement -

Voters may vote on proosals that have not yet been submitted in ways besides "for," "against," and "undecided."

Voting is regulated by r114, which states:
"Voters may cast a vote one of three ways on any proosal during the prescribed voting period; for, against or undecided."

This doesn't make it illegal to vote on proosals before they exist, it only limits the kind of votes that can be made during the prescribed voting period.  Since no rule prohibits voting on non-existant proosals, it is legal by r115, and since no rule regulates it, it can be done in anyway.

For one thing, voting on a proosal which doesn't exist seems nonsensical, especially given that it may never exist. It could be argued that you are merely announcing an intent to vote, i.e. "I vote blah on Pxxx" means "I will vote blah on Pxxx as soon as Pxxx comes into existence", but this would then be prohibited, as it would fall within the voting period.

Even if this is not the case, I believe that the correct interpretation of the phrase
"Voters may cast a vote one of three ways on any proosal during the prescribed voting period"
is not
"During the pvp, voters may vote on of three ways"
but rather
"Voters may vote only if they do so during the pvp, and in one of three ways".

I therefore judge this false.

Statement -

Rule 204 implies that each voter may vote only once during the game.

(cough, cough)

"Rule 204
One Voter One Vote

Each Voter may cast at most one vote unless the rules state otherwise."

It could be argued that r204 states, rather than "implies", this, but the definiton of imply is, I think, sufficently broad that rule 204 does indeed imply that each voter may vote only once during the game.

Of course, this is not in fact the case, since r204 says "unless the rules state otherwise", and r114 says "Voters may cast a vote one of three ways on any proosal during the prescribed voting period", but r204 implies that it is the case, so this CFJ is True.

Statement -

No players have purchased any zones in the last two calendar months

Well I'm quite happy to enter into a debate with the judge if they plan to give a judgment other than true so please e-mail me before any judgment. (Okay it's not reasoning but it got you to read it - didn't it? What do you mean no. Damn you, you
ignorant...........................................................................................................................

Okay I accept judgement (but on what - essentially either part of the statement is missing or it is merely a statemnt of fact) which will have no effect upon the game whatsoever.So since I can neither confirm or deny this statement of fact- or fr that matter see what difference it makes my judgement is undecided- if this is the complete statement..

Statement -

It is both legal and illegal to enter zone (5,2).

Even though the map page is out of date] the zone has a paradoxal entry requirement.

Statement -

It is currently impossible for any proosal to achieve quorum.

Rule 215 states "Quorum is achieved on a proosal only if 50% of the non-Vegetable players cast a vote." Currently, we have 9 non-Vegetable players. It is therefore impossible for any proosal to achieve quorum, as that would require 4.5 non-Vegetable players to vote.

This may not be (and hopefully isn't) the case, as quorum is a minimum requirement which should be achieved at >= 50%. On the other hand, when I achieved a score of > 100 points, I hadn't achieved a score of 100 points, and so didn't win the game.

I tried to think of a good reason why this was false, honestly I did, but I shot them all down in flames. This is so true, you could sew two of them together and make truesers.

Statement -

In the 2 calendar months preceding the submission of CFJ 138, no players bought any Zones.

Jesus Christ thought he was in all Zones at once.

He thinks a lot of things.

Statement -

It's equally valid and invalid to leave a society if doing so would create a society identical to one already in existance.

Rule 1501, entitled "Everything Lasts Forever", states that "A player may leave a Society of which he or she is a member at _any_ time..." (my emphisis) and also states that "If an action is attempted which would leave two or more societies with identical membership that action automatically fails."

We have no rules about the precedence of ideas within a single rule. Therefore, the action previously described, which is both allowed and disallowed by the same rule, is equally valid and invalid.

>>The rule would prevent this action being legal, also the first part of the
>>statement doesn't automatically guarantee that the player can leave, it
>>just allows that possibility with the implicit understanding that the
>>action is legal. Therefore the rule is consisitent.

Statement -

Proosals do not need to contain rule changes or alterations to game state to be proosals.

1) r225 states that "A proosal _may_ contain..." rule changes or game state alterations (my emphisis).

2) The speaker delivered bacon's p333, which had neither, and it was called a proosal.

Firstly, I note that this CFJ is trivially true. Proosals are, by definition, proosals.

I will now address the intended statement of this CFJ; whether or not proosals which contain no alterations to the rules or gamestate are permitted.

This is also true. I had considered various possibilities, involving rule 110 and whether or not a null proosal was permitted or regulated, but these were needlessly complicated.

Rule 225, "What is a proosal?", states in part "A proosal may contain *any number* of rule changes or alterations to the game state." (emphasis added). Zero is a number. Therefore a proosal may contain zero rule or game state changes. (It is also permitted by the rules for a proosal to contain a negative (or indeed complex) number of rule changes; that would be interesting.))

Statement -

Player CowJason is omnipotent.

1) I created an entity called the Crown of Q.

Rule 1001 implies that there are entities, but no rule regulates their existence, therefore this is implicitly allowed by r1001 and therefore I was empowered by r110 to do this.

2) It was created with the explicit property of granting it's owner omnipotence.

Rule 1001 states that entities have no implicit properties other than those in the rules, however I explicitly stated when I created the entity that it had this property.

It is possible that, since "omnipotent" is not defined by the rules, CowJason can be omnipotent if he wants. In this case I believe this CFJ should be False, as he has not stated that he was becoming omnipotent, and so isn't.

I think it likely, however, that "omnipotent" has sufficient support from game custom to mean able to "alter the rules and game state at will". In this case, is CowJason omnipotent?

In point 1 of his reasoning, CowJason argues that rule 110 empowers him to create entities. Rule 110 states, in part, "changing the rules or game state... is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it." He argues that rule 1001 implies that there are entities, and therefore implicitly allows the creation of entities. This is not the case. Rule 1001 does not imply the existence of any entities other than players, and even if it did, the existence of entities does not imply that entities can be created. Therefore this CFJ is False.

Assuming that the entity was created, this CFJ would still be False. Only "a rule or set of rules" can permit changes to the rules or game state. Entities, regardless of what properties they may have, cannot (unless some rule says they can).

Statement -

Since game custom is created by the actions of players, proosals that have failed to become rules, or rules that have been removed, constitute a 'negative' game custom, ie the actions or gamestates they detail are against game custom. Therefore they can be used in judgements as reasoning against a game state.

pretty basic, although unfortunately as we only have a few rules on game custom it is helpful. This is to clear up the situation with bacon's proosals as thhey was definetely a time way back when that we specifically refused to do that. Also this establishes game custom a bit better.

Trivially, rejected proosals have no effect on the game state.

Additionally, proosals may be rejected for many reasons: players may disagree with the implementation of an idea rather than the overall concept; players may feel that a proosal adds something to the rule set which is already explicit enough (in this case a rejected proosal might read as a true represenatation of game custom); or a proosal may simply fail quorum.

"Game custom" represents the consensus interpretation of the rules and the day to day handling of the game as a direct result of those rules. It is not affected by what *might* have been a rule but rather what the rules *are*.

Statement -

Game custom is that entities only exist with in the game, and as such, we do not actually need to pay the donut warehouse donuts in order to by zones.

I hope this is the case, but if not, you people really should have voted for my Metaphysics proosal.

While we do in fact need to pay the Donut Warehouse Donuts in order to buy Zones, the Donuts that we pay, like the Zones we buy, are entities defined only in terms of the rules of the game, and not the tasty real world confectionery items.

Statement -

No further gameplay is possible.

There are no players and without players gameplay ceases.

>From my last CFJ (CFJ 146), we know that game custom is that entities exist only within the game. Rule 1001 states that players are entities. This means that if we are players, then we exist only within the game. However, we know that we exist outside the game for various, clear reasons; we communicate through email, for instance, and if we did exist only within the game we as entities would need to have this behavior explicitly set forth in the rules.

Some half-hearted defense could be posed involving r125, but let me point out that it states that players must be registered by the speaker. As the speaker must be a player, he does not exist, either.

For one thing, I believe that rule 102 mandates the existence of a Speaker, and thus those people registered by the Speaker as players in accordance with rule 125 are players.

Also, while it is game custom that entities in general do not exist outwith the game, the case could be made that this is only in general, and does not apply to players, or that the rule-defined-entity players (Avatars) are separate from the real-life players.

I therefore judge this False, with apologies for the brevity of my reasoning. I would have written more, but I... didn't.

Statement -

The judgement on CFJ133 is undecided.

As unregulated and permitted by Rule 110, I interpret Rule 101 to mean that rule 101 takes precedence over all other rules and grants me right to change rules and game state at will. Rule 101 will not prevent me from doing so, since Rule 110 forbids rules from controlling the interpretion (except for itself) and the interpreted Rule 101 does not restrict that.

If the initiator's reasoning is correct then, using the same method, I interpret the rules as saying all CFJs submitted by tic0 must be judged false. If however the reasoning is inaccurate then my judgement must again be false. ie this CFJ must be judged false no matter my opinion on the provided reasoning.

Statement -

Any text, whatever used in rule or somewhere else, that is meant to be name, will remain as a name in it's complete form. Similarly, any text that is not meant to be name, cannot be used as a name when interpreting the text.

I think this is one of the basic foundations for human communications within RFN, any other nomic or real life. Computers are different, they don't get it, but then computers don't play nomic. So, when we allow adding names into rules without delimiting them, we also DO know what part of the text is the name (from the original action containing the delimiters).

[Note: If this is judged anything else than true, then my only option will be to proose a rule containing the statement in this CFJ.]

I believe CFJ 149 to be invalid as it contains two statements. In case this is wrong I will proceed to judge it anyway.

I judge CFJ 149: undecided (there's a surprise)
Reasoning: the text "will remain as a name in its complete form" indicates what happens in the future, and not being a mystic I don't know what's going to happen there.

Even if this CFJ had said what it was meant to I would have judged it false as it has no basis in the rules (see initiator's reasoning) or game custom (as yet).

Statement -

At the time of the submission of this CFJ, the effects that rule 605 had on game play could not be determined with finality.

The final paragraph of the rule is as follows:

" Should the Donut Warehouse ever own precisely 55555 Donuts, this rule will be repealed. (1) It makes no change to the rules or game play other than its existence as Quorum "

The pronoun "it" has the antecedent of "this rule" under standard linguistic interpretation. If the rule makes no change to the rules or game play, then clearly it (A) can not modify itself nor (B) enforce it's own final paragraph. If it can't enforce it's final paragraph, however, the rule can't make itself have no effect on the rules or game play, and if it isn't making itself useless, then the final paragraph must be active again... and, so forth, ad infintium.