Radio Free Nomic
CFJs 151 - 200

Statement -

A player with X donuts where X= price of a zone (in donuts) * (number of unowned zones- (unowned zones occupied by another player + zone of big giant stomping foot of death when BGSFOD is in an unowned zone)), could instantly purchase all the zones currently unowned, and unnoccupied by other players- provided that there was a clear path for him to follow.

Rule 1301 says that
>Players may buy an unowned Zone which is not Common Ground by specifying the location of such a Zone, and paying
>100 Donuts. For this to take place the player must be the only player in the specified Zone.

Also
>
>A player may move to any Zone provided his location immediately previously was in a zone which has a clear path to the
>one into which he wants to move, and he meets the entrance requirements. >
>A clear path is defined as being a ordered series of Zones, including both the starting Zone and the final Zone, where each
>Zone is adjacent to the following Zone, and where the player wishing to travel at all times meets the entrance requirements
>for the next Zone in the series.

As such a player may move around Specifying general entrance requirements for any zone he owns at the end of his message, thus blocking all players into the zones he owns.

No one can buy the zone held by the BGSFOD.

Statement -

When purchasing a zone a player sets entrance requirements these entrance requirements take effect instantly.

I actually just want this either confirmed or denied in Game custom

Irrespective of whatever player is changing entrance requirements at the same go as buing a zone, zone entrance requirement changes are always immediate. [As a side note, we should have a official way of determining the chronological order of actions. Perhaps we should adapt a custom, where things happen in the order in which they are received by the speaker. Or the mailing list processor, it adds timestamps as well. That would be technically better, in my opinion. Feel free to argue.]

Statement -

If a player moved constantly he would be unable to be killed.

1. Players when posting messages either move sequentially ie if 4 players submitted messages they would take turns to move a zone - or this movement happens instantly.
2. For a player to react/ kill someone they need to be in the same zone as them- consequently if movement is sequential this is possible, if instantaneous it isn't because the first player has been through the zone before any one else could react.

Example

Player A moves from zone (1,1) to (1,3) (both of which he owns- the entrance requirements set at only real name Player A may enter this zone) via (1,2).

Player B is in (1,2).

Player A sends a message saying that he is moving - when player B recieves this message he says he is killing A as he passes through the zone they are both in.

If movement is sequential - A moves into (1,2) occupies it briefly - and B then moves - killing A. If movement is instantaneous - A moves through (1,2) before B can react.

3. Consequently this means that a player saying that he moves through a cycle of zones constantly in the same pattern prevents any player from killing him.

Trivially, If a player moved constantly from one zone to another, then the Foot of Death entered one of those zones, then the player would die.

Secondly, I don't think it's possible for players to move continuously. Rule 1301 only permits moving from one zone to another and I am undecided as to whether constant movement is permitted.

Thirdly, in your example Player A would move to zone (1,3) when he posted his message. He would occupy zone (1,2) for an infintesimally short time. Player B would be unable to murder Player A because by the time Player B has posted his message, Player A would be in zone (1,3).

Statement -

If a player purchased every zone in the game by travelling, no player would be able to move, or complete any journey they made dating from when the speaker read the message buying all the zones.

Just want to make it crystal clear

I concur with illuminati fnord's reasoning on CFJ 157. Additionally I would like to add that if entrance requirements prohibited a player from entering other player's zones, he could still move freely within his own zones.

Statement -

All movement is instantaneous in RFN

Again this isn't defined in the rules so I thought it should be in game custom

After extensive review with bacon, I must return a judgement of undecided

Statement -

When a player moves he briefly occupies the zone he moves through. Consequently if a player moves round all zones in a clear path - and constsntly repeats doing this indefinetly no player may purchase any zones except him.

See the CFJ on murders if a player stated that he made a move through all clear zones - then saide he repeated this move indefinetly - then he would either occupy all zones for a brief period of time during which no player, could purchase a zone as they are occupied

A bit of a mess, this, as the Statement demonstrably contains two very different statements. Fortunately, both are false.

First:

"When a player moves he briefly occupies the zone he moves through."

'Zone, or Zones,' would make better sense than merely 'Zone'. But the intent is clear enough. There is nothing to say the Player ever actually occupies the intermediate Zones between his start and end points. Assuming he does satisfy the requirements for all the middle Zones, the player merely 'teleports' to the end position. So this is False.

And Second:

"Consequently if a player moves round all zones in a clear path - and constsntly repeats doing this indefinetly no player may purchase any zones except him."

This is false. At any given time, a player must be occupying a Zone. And so, for that brief time, the player is *not* occupying any of the other Zones. It is therefore possible for another player to buy one of the unoccupied Zones, proving this Statement false.

Statement -

>If a player purchased every zone in the game by travelling, no player would be able to move, or complete any journey they made dating from when the speaker read the message buying all the zones.

>Just want to make it crystal clear

The fact that a Zone is owned by a player does not prevent another player from entering it. Aside from which, even if it did, it would not date from when the Speaker read the relevant message, but from when the Speaker's mail server received the relevant message.

Statement -

>All movement is instantaneous in RFN

>Again this isn't defined in the rules so I thought it should be in game custom

Statement -

>A player with X donuts where X= price of a zone (in donuts) * (number of unowned zones- (unowned zones occupied by another player + zone of big giant stomping foot of death when BGSFOD is in an unowned zone)), could instantly purchase all the zones currently unowned, and unnoccupied by other players- provided that there was a clear path for him to follow.

>Rule 1301 says that
>>Players may buy an unowned Zone which is not Common Ground by specifying the location of such a Zone, and paying
>>100 Donuts. For this to take place the player must be the only player in the specified Zone.
>
>Also
>>
>>A player may move to any Zone provided his location immediately previously was in a zone which has a clear path to the
>>one into which he wants to move, and he meets the entrance requirements.
>>
>>A clear path is defined as being a ordered series of Zones, including both the starting Zone and the final Zone, where each
>>Zone is adjacent to the following Zone, and where the player wishing to travel at all times meets the entrance requirements
>>for the next Zone in the series.
>
>As such a player may move around Specifying general entrance requirements for any zone he owns at the end of his message, thus blocking all players into the zones he owns.

I concur with CowJason's reasoning on CFJ 151

Statement -

>When a player moves he briefly occupies the zone he moves through. Consequently if a player moves round all zones in a clear path - and constsntly repeats doing this indefinetly no player may purchase any zones except him.

>See the CFJ on murders if a player stated that he made a move through all clear zones - then saide he repeated this move indefinetly - then he would either occupy all zones for a brief period of time during which no player, could purchase a zone as they are occupied

Okay, imagine that we could cut time apart into individual, indivisable, consecutive frames, as if the universe was just a giant film roll. Now, imagine that there were four available zones, adjacent to one another. You continually zip from one to another, one to another forever.

Now, imagine that I attempt to move into one of the four zones. Although your zone-to-zone movement may be instantanious, you still always have to be in one zone at any given frame. This gives me a three-in-four chance of actually successfully being alone in the zone at any time; you see, buying a zone, too is an instantanious action. That means, 75% of the time, if I attempt to buy the zone, I succeed.

Statement -

>If a player moved constantly he would be unable to be killed.

>1. Players when posting messages either move sequentially ie if 4 players submitted messages they would take turns to move a zone - or this movement happens instantly.
>2. For a player to react/ kill someone they need to be in the same zone as them- consequently if movement is sequential this is possible, if instantaneous it isn't because the first player has been through the zone before any one else could react.
>
>Example
>
>Player A moves from zone (1,1) to (1,3) (both of which he owns- the entrance requirements set at only real name Player A may enter this zone) via (1,2).
>
>Player B is in (1,2).
>
>Player A sends a message saying that he is moving - when player B recieves this message he says he is killing A as he passes through the zone they are both in.
>
>If movement is sequential - A moves into (1,2) occupies it briefly - and B then moves - killing A. If movement is instantaneous - A moves through (1,2) before B can react.
>
>3. Consequently this means that a player saying that he moves through a cycle of zones constantly in the same pattern prevents any player from killing him.

cf. CFJ 153

Statement -

>When purchasing a zone a player sets entrance requirements these entrance requirements take effect instantly.

>I actually just want this either confirmed or denied in Game custom

I hate to do this, but the wording of the CFJ left me with no options.

The CFJ seems to indicate that while purchasing the zone, as in at the ___same time__ as purchasing the zone, the player purchasing the zone sets the zone's entrance requirements.

Since he did it "when purchasing" the zone, and not "after purchasing" it, the action fails and the requirements do not go into effect because he doesn't own the zone.

Statement -

It is equally valid and invalid for the Grand Pedantic Wizard to reveal what proosals he has amended in the way outlined in rule 1116.

Rule 1116 states that "the Grand Pedantic Wizard at no time may reveal what proosals he has amended in this way". This is different from say, trying to enter a zone in which one does not meet the entrance requirements as the action in this case simply would fail. If however, the GPW was to reveal that he had amended one of ifs proosals this clearly would actually happen despite the fact that it cannot.

In game terms, such an action would not be allowed. It is a peculiarity of this particular type of action that it could in fact happen in contradiction to the rules, and if that were to happen I am unsure what the results would be. However, it would still constitute an invalid action. In the eyes of the game (I refer in a metaphysical sense to the process which would deny the invalid movement described in the initiator's reasoning) this action would not have occurred.

Statement -

The Stuff-Meister must keep records of the location of avatars, and whether they are alive or dead. Furthermore, if the Juke Box proosal passes, it will be his responsibility to keep track of the tracks.

The Stuff-Meister has to track entities, avatars are entities, tracking is defined as "keeping a record of the state of that thing (which is being tracked)", and these things, one would assume, are included under the umbrella of the "state of that thing."

It is the Stuffmeister's duty to track entities, and avatars do indeed fall into that category. However, the songs in the Jukebox are not entities, and thus, the Stuffmeister does not have to keep records of them.

What a dreadful pun.

Statement -

the player known as Cato destroyed all his biscuits on 2nd march 1999.

> Biscuits are Radio Free Nomic, which my only be manipulated as described in the rules.
>

The following is a qoute from rule 605 'all the madmen'.

This clearly states that biscuits are RFN. Consequently because the rules allow for actions to be taken. Such actions are included in the creation and removal of entities via the actions of players. Consequently my action to destroy all my biscuits suceeded.

Entities are regulated by the rules and as such the "the creation and removal of entities" never happens unless the rules say it happens; currently, they don't.

Just in case, though, I destroy Cato's avatar.

Statement -

Rule 1305 is defined as "insane dribble".

It specifies that donuts are transfered to the Donut Warehouse by way of the digestive track of poor, helpless Game Mechanics. Although the term "transfered" is never used, the rules define transfering as exchanging the ownership of an entity, and that is what is going on here. By rule 1610, that makes the rule insane dribble.

I define (note the tense) rule 1305 as "insane dribble" on the 15th of April 1999.
I judge CFJ 166 TRUE.

Perhaps I should explain...

By rule 1610 rule 1305 may or may not be defined as (insane dribble). This however is clearly different from "insane dribble". However defining rules as things other than (insane dribble) or (D'oh!) is not governed by the rules. Also altering a rule's definition is not a rule change as defined by rule 201 hence there is no problem with retroactive application.
Any player can then define a rule as anything they like except (insane dribble) and (D'oh!) and at any time they like. As I have (had?) defined rule 1305 as "insane dribble" at a date before CFJ 166 was submitted the only reasonable judgement is TRUE. Unless of course someone removes this definition on April 16th 1999, which may yet happen, in which case I will also do the following which might work. I define rule 1305 as "insane dribble" an infitesimally (sp?) small amount of time before it is submitted.

That should do it.

Statement -

Grimace's submitted line "This is a chemist, not a joker's shop!" appears in House of Fun by Madness.

I don't think it does but I can neither confirm nor deny that enough to give him the WMAs.

I believe it to be true.

Statement -

the line submitted by arosor with respect to the song "Maria" appeared in the song.

Many things can be assumed, not all are correct.

Clearly, the intent of the message sent was to prefix any double-quote delimited text by unambiguous statements of such delimitation. Any other reading would be insane.

Statement -

the line submitted by arosor with respect to the first playing of the song "Tweeter and the Monkey Man" appeared in the said song.

Clearly, the effect of the message sent was to prefix any double-quote character by the text '(delimited by ")'. Any other reading would be insane.

Statement -

The player CowJason and the player that judges this CFJ may cast two votes on any proosal.

Why, it's quite obvious.

1 + 1 = 2

Statement -

The validity of the Speaker randomly selecting a rule numbered less than 10000 as described in the second paragraph of rule 1625, "Shock Value", cannot be determined with finality.

Rule 1625 states in part "At the beginning of every calendar week each of the following steps is performed precisely once, in the order the appear, by either an infinitely large set of highly trained chimpanzees or the Speaker:", and lists a number of steps, one of which is the one mentioned in the statement of this CFJ. However, it does not provide a mechanism to determine whether it is the Speaker or the primate collective which does the determination. Therefore the validity of my doing so cannot be determined with finality.

The argument is valid. The rule does not specify a procedure for deciding whether the primates or the Speaker is in charge of choosing the Magic Word. The rule only specifies that an XOR condition exists on this situation; either the Speaker or the chimps must do it, but not both.

Now, if the chimps and the Speaker both were to go through the procedure, the CFJ would be true, as there would be no procedure for deciding who's was valid. But if only one of the two groups goes through the procedure, then the the only existing copy must be the valid one. Furthermore, since we are obliged to obey the rules by rule 101 if no copy exists, one copy must be made to exist to rectify the situation.

I would offer two pieces of proof that only the Speaker can possibly go through the procedure and therefore he must go through the procedure, and that, in response to the CFJ, his resaults must be the valid ones:

1) An infinitely large set of chimpanzees would not be able to randomly select a rule numbered less than 1000, because in order for them to do this, they would have to communicate with one another, and since there are an infinite number of them, it would take an infinite length of time for them to do so. In other words, they would never completely do it.

2) An infinitely large set of chimpanzees can't exist, since the universe is constructed of a finite ammount of matter. [I think that our simpleton Speaker might be questioning the existance of things outside of the universe, my friends.] If they can't exist, the can't go through the procedure.

Statement -

JRW was not a vegetable when the song 'A Country Practice' finished playing on the Jukebox, on the 10.9.1999.

Statement -

All players, except the speaker, are authorised to use the "force of the biscuit""

The rules only say "should" be, not "are"

No ought implies an is, and changing the Speaker's name constitutes an effect on gamestate.