Calls for Judgement

Submitted by David Wilson the Astroboy

Statement for Judgement:
"I submit that Rule 307 was adopted in contradiction to the rules and should be repealed immediately (ie Rule 209 should be reinstated in its original form)"

Reasons:
"Here is a quote from the Official Document of 9/1/95 which passed rule 307:

>Proposal 307 received two votes AGAINST and is adopted and Rule 209 becomes
>Rule 307 and is immutable. The Proposer receives 3 points.

This means that rule 307 was adopted using rule 303. But the votes required for transmuting rules are set out in Rule 110 and is different from other Proposals. Rule 303 cannot take precedence over Rule 110 and therefore Rule 307 was adopted when it shouldn't have been."

Judge selected: Troy Porter the Marvellous Insectoid

Judgement: FALSE
(distributed on Tue, 14 Mar 1995 at 12:17:51 + 1030)

Reasons:
"I judge that Rule 307 was adopted legally within the Rules of Thring that were in effect at the time of voting for Proposal 307. I therefore say that the above statement is FALSE (in line with Rule 216 to make this a legal judgement) and that Rule 307 will not be repealed."

Submitted by Adrian Corston the Geographically Jealous

Statement for Judgement:
"The actions specified in Rule 310 are nullified by Rule 204 and therefore the Speaker should refrain from submitting Opposite Proposals until such a time as the conflict between these two rules is resolved."

Reasons:
"Ok, while we're in pedant mode, let's throw the whole thing upside down.

Simon - Yo!'s point about 333 actually being passed would appear to be quite correct. However, the actual Proposal is itself illegal and therefore cannot be accepted as a Rule.

Rule 310 reads, in part, "the Speaker is considered (legally) to have submitted the proposal" (ie. the Opposite Proposal is considered to have been submitted by the Speaker).

Rule 204 reads, in part, "Only Voters may make Proposals".

Rule 103 (immutable) reads, in part, "At any time, each player shall be either a Voter or the Speaker; no Player may simultaneously be a Voter and a Speaker".

Rule 212 reads, in part, "If two or more Mutable Rules conflict with one another [...] then the Rule with the lowest ordinal Number takes precedence".

Now, Rule 204 and Rule 310 (both mutable) conflict with each other. Accoding to Rule 212, Rule 204 overrides Rule 310 and therefore I contend that according to the current rules it is illegal for the Speaker to submit Proposals in accordance with Rule 310.

I therefore invoke Judgement on the statement that:

[...]

I realise that this Judgement is not precisely in line with the rules regarding Judgements, because none of the situations described in Rules 213 and 219 have actually occured, but I feel that it is in the Spirit of the Game to invoke this Judgement. Furthermore, Rule 116 reads, in part, "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a Rule is permitted and unregulated", and there are no rules prohibiting ot regulating the invocation of Judgement in this situation."

Judge selected: David Wilson the Astroboy

Judgement: TRUE
(distributed: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 14:59:04 +1030)

Reasons/Comments:
"...so I will stop making opposite Proposals until the rules are corrected."

Submitted by Troy Porter the Marvellous Insectoid

Statement for Judgement:
"I challenge the validity of all Proposals previously adopted as Rules on the basis of illegal Votes being cast. I Call for Judgement on the legality of all such Rules and Proposals that have been accepted or rejected on the basis of these illegal Votes. I call on the Speaker to provide records of all voting periods to the selected Judge such that e may judge whether or not Votes have been legally (or illegally) cast in line with Rule 207. Furthermore I demand that all Votes declared illegal be deemed as abstainations and a recount of all Votes for Proposals up to this Call for Judgement be made, such that any Proposals that were not adopted on the basis of these illegal Votes be adopted and any Rules adopted because of these illegal Votes be repealed. All penalties and benefits with respect to the normal Play of the Game should occur."

Judge selected: David Wilson the Astroboy

Judgement: FALSE
(distributed Mon, 3 Apr 1995 12:04:53 +1030)

Reasons:
"...on the grounds that most of the voting has been legal (most of the illegal ones happened in the early quiet period of the game), and that it would cause too much hassle to recount all the votes."

Appealed by Troy Porter the Marvellous Insectoid
(distributed Mon, 3 Apr 1995 12:38:37 +1030)

Appeal number: 392

Reasons:
"In line with Rule 352 I Appeal this Judgement on the basis of it being non-consistent with Rule 217 which states, in part, that 'All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however.....'. The Rules are explicit in what constitutes a legal and an illegal Vote. Furthermore in discussions with the Speaker in the past, which was not in the 'early quiet' period (if I am pressed for an exact time I would hazard to say of the order of 3-4 weeks ago) of the game, he indicated to me that Votes were being made with 'Yes' for FOR and 'No' for AGAINST, and that he was counting these two words as legal Votes. While they may be synonymous with the words that are used in Voting they are *not* classed as legal Votes by the Rules of Thring. In making my Call for Judgement I did consider the effort expended in making a recount of all the Votes and I believe that it is possible for the current state of the Game to be altered if this Judgement is overturned. Therefore I believe that any effort made to ensure that we have legally adopted Rules is reasonable."

Submitted by Luke Schubert the Surreptitious

Statement for Judgement:
"That Proposal 427 was in fact a Name-Change-Proposal and not a Proposal to enact a Rule. As such, it should not be a part of the Ruleset."

Reasons:

"The text is Proposal 427 is as follows:

"Proposal 427 - The Extremely Suspicious Looking Proposal

This proposal names various Rules:

Rule 303: The Alice in Wonderland Voting Decision Rule
Rule 305: The Thring Story
Rule 306: Support for the Arts
Rule 327: The Structured Writing Rule
Rule 332: The Rule That Was Introduced Rather Belatedly

COMMENT:

All spelling mistakes in this Proposal are intentional :-)"

The proposed Rule Change (actually Rule Changes; see later) is to be carried out by the Proposal; if it were a proposed Rule Enactment, then it should specify that the Rule change the Names of other Rules.

My argument is that this Proposal best fits into the category of Name-Change-Proposals. The only way, according to the Rules, that the Names of Rules can be changed is by Name-Change- Proposals, unless the Rule is also amended at the same time. Thus, for this Proposal to be legal (which is certainly desirable) it must be a Name-Change-Proposal. (An accepted Proposal can only amend one rule.)

The Proposal in question does actually propose to provide several Nameless Rules with Names. This is the only reason that I thought of the Proposal as a Proposal to enact a Rule, i.e. because Rule 401 specifies that a Name-Change-Proposal changes one Name. However, in all other respects, Proposal 427 fits the criteria for being a Name-Change-Proposal."

Relevant Rules:

105, (108), 116, 328, 401.

Comments:

"Yes, I'm calling for Judgement on my own actions. I was undecided about whether to make 427 a Rule or not; this is a way of letting someone else decide :)

There are a few similar rules which maybe should not be in the Ruleset; any Judgement here may set a precedent.

I'm going to repost to the list my arguments about Repeal Proposals; this Judgement is not about repealing, but I did set out (in those arguments) my thoughts about Proposals in general."

Judge selected: Paul Schulz the ubiquitous

Judgement: FALSE
(distributed Mon, 29 May 1995 10:38:56 +0930 (CST))

Reasons:
"Rule 116 states that possible changes to the rules (as official documents) must be explicit. Rule 402 states that a Name-Change-Proposal is a proposal who's only effect is to amend the Name of a Rule (singular)! Rule 402 should be make plural."

Submitted by Anarchy

Statement for Judgement:
"Rule 329 as it stands would cause too much disruption to the game, and has not been enforced. It should therefore be considered null and void."

Reasons:
"The other slightly worrying rule is rule 117, which defines the Thring Week... during the Long Hiatus associated with the Change of Speakership, more than 3 weeks have passed with nothing happening. Unfortunately, rule 329 exists, which expels any Players who are inactive for three weeks. And we can't redefine 'week' because rule 117 is immutable. Where does this leave us?"

Judge selected: Luke Schubert (Transitional Speaker)

Judgement: defaulted
(distributed Wed, 7 Jun 1995 10:25:52 +0930 (CST))

Judge selected: Duncan Richer the Slakko

Judgement: FALSE
(distributed Wed, 7 Jun 1995 12:42:17 +0930 (CST))

Reasons:
"In accordance with Rule 217, my Judgement must abide by the rules. There is currently no rule which permits a Judgement to declare a rule invalid. Consequently, despite any spirit of the Game arguments which I would love to invoke, I have absolutely no option according to the Rules but to declare this statement FALSE.

I appreciate that this may create a number of paradoxes, in which case the game may be unable to continue. With no players surviving, the game would fold, and if this is the case I therefore would like to invoke Judgement on the following statement."

[see later]

Submitted by David Wilson the Astroboy

Statement for Judgement:
"That there is a paradox in that Rule 112 states that "The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered from achieving n points to any other state of affairs" but currently there is no way of winning by points."

Judge selected: Luke Schubert (Transitional Speaker)

Judgement: UNDECIDED
(distributed Wed, 7 Jun 1995 10:41:56 +0930 (CST))

Submitted by David Wilson the Astroboy

Statement for Judgement:
"That Rule 427 is illegal and should be declared void because it violates Rule 105 by trying to change more than one Rule."

Judge selected: Luke Schubert (Transitional Speaker)

Judgement: defaulted
(distributed Thu, 8 Jun 1995 14:05:40 +0930 (CST))

Judge selected: Ian Wanless the Nowhere Differentiable

Judgement: FALSE
(distributed Fri, 9 Jun 1995 17:08:16 +0930 (CST))

Reasons:
"My reasoning is that the proposal which became rule 427 enacted **a** mutable rule (namely 427), rather than five mutable rules (303,305, 306,327,332). It is thus not in violation of rule 105."

Submitted by Luke Schubert (Transitional Speaker)

Statement for Judgement:
"That if a Judge delivers the Judgement UNDECIDED on any Statement for Judgement, the Speaker should select a new Judge by the procedure(s) specified in the Rules."

Reasons:
"This action is not prohibited by the Rules (as far as I can see); however, I think that it is only important if a Judge delivers the verdict of UNDECIDED.

As it is, there is a procedure for challenging any Judgement, as set out in Rule 352. However, a Judgement of UNDECIDED does not settle any claims. To resolve the Statement one way or another, it is then necessary to either Appeal the Judgement or select a new Judge. If this Statement is Judged true, the Speaker will be obliged to select a new Judge every time UNDECIDED is returned, rather than wait for an Appeal to settle the issue.

I believe that the Rules are silent on this, so that Rule 217 holds and the Judge of the above Statement should consider Game Custom and the Spirit of the Game.

I also think that the Speaker should only select a new Judge if the Statement was UNDECIDED, the previous Judge failed to deliver a Judgement, or there is a successful Appeal. The above Statement, if judged true, will in no way condone the Speaker choosing a new Judge for any Statement if the first Judgement is TRUE (or FALSE) and not Appealed."

Judge selected: Simon Wilson - Yo!

Judgement: FALSE
(distributed Mon, 5 Jun 1995 12:18:57 +0930 (CST))

Reasons:

"I'm sorry about this Luke. I agree with the sentiment however I think the rules about judgements are clear. An UNDECIDED judgement is just that, and so the resulting action should be to continue as if the call for judgement had not been made. To change this situation we will have to implement new rules.

If you are too busy just submit a quick UNDECIDED judgement along with your reasons and trust in the players to appeal the decision."

Submitted by David Wilson the Astroboy

Statement for Judgement:
"That Proposal 448 is not proposed in the proper way and should not be voted on because it conflicts with Rule 105 which makes it clear that a Proposal can only propose to repeal a single Rule."

Judge selected: Luke Schubert (Transitional Speaker)

Judgement: FALSE
(distributed Tue, 13 Jun 1995 15:35:59 +0930 (CST))

Reasons:
"The full text of Proposal 448 is:

'Proposal 448 - Cleaning Up After The Vandals

All rules currently in existence whose only function is to change the name of another rule or rules, or to repeal another rule or rules, are hereby repealed and stricken from the ruleset.

COMMENTS:

Note that this rule also cleans up after itself.

All Spelling Mistakes in this Proposal are intentional.'

This Proposal is not a Proposal to Repeal, as such a Proposal can only Repeal one Rule (as David mentions). It must be a Proposal to Enact. (In fact, the comment justifies this.) The Rule thus enacted will repeal a certain number of Rules (including itself); however, I believe that a Rule can contain any number of Rule Changes and still be legal.

(I would have Judged UNDECIDED, but I felt that this CfJ might need a definite response and preferred not to lose 10 more points. People can still Appeal this Judgement, especially if they have good reasons against it.)

Submitted by Duncan Richer the Slakko

Statement for Judgement: "After the FALSE Judgement above, no further play is possible in this game of Thring Nomic."

[Note: above means the Judgement on the CfJ of 31 May 1995]

Reasons:
[see Judgement for CfJ of 31 May 1995; also]

"I appreciate that this may create a number of paradoxes, in which case the game may be unable to continue. With no players surviving, the game would fold, and if this is the case I therefore would like to invoke Judgement on the following statement."

Judge selected: Luke Schubert (Transitional Speaker)

Judgement: UNDECIDED
(distributed Tue, 13 Jun 1995 15:29:08 +0930 (CST))

Reasons/Comments:
"[Note: People can Appeal this Judgement, but ...]"

Submitted by Andrew the jester

Statement for Judgement:
"Rule 451, in attempting to impose the penalty of forgetting the laws created by Rule 340 on me in particular (and all players in general), conflicts with Rule 113, as in my judgement this penalty is worse than losing. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 111, it is entirely void."

Reasons:
"More food for thought: Rule 451 says that the laws must be "erased and forgotten"
---------

Now, according to 113, "No penalty worse than losing, in the judgment of the Player to incur it, may be imposed."

I claim that being forced to forget something is worse than losing. As you can see, I haven't forgotten them, nor do I intend to. I also contend that something in the current rules can not be forgotten, as we are all obliged to obey all rules in effect. I argue then that rule 451 conflicts with the immutable rule 113, and hence is "entirely void" (111)
So I hold that the laws still exist. Since there appears to be some disagreement about this (they have been removed from the www page), I am invoking judgement on the following statement:

[...]

The laws still exist (at least, I say they do). At the moment, they just have no effect on the game. But we can fix that :)"

Judge selected: Luke Schubert (Transitional Speaker)

Judgement: <none>
[game ended]

Submitted by Adrian Corston has no epithet

Statement for Judgement:
"Andrew the jester does not really believe that forgetting any Rules affected by Rule 340 is worse than losing."

Reasons/Comments:

"For reference, it's 09:34 Wednesday 14 June as I post this.

[...]

I would appreciate a rapid Judgement on this Statement!"

Judge selected: Luke Schubert (Transitional Speaker)

Judgement: UNDECIDED
distributed: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 16:56:53 +0930 (CST)

Reasons:
"I have no way of knowing what Andrew believes. I doubt that he does believe that forgetting laws is worse than losing, but being forced to forget laws is different again. (Perhaps he's taking a political stand against the "rewriting of history".)

I think that Rule 113 (quoted below) is an important Rule and I hope that it won't be watered down. The relevant part of that Rule to this Judgement is "in the judgement of the Player to incur it". We can't always tell what will push another Player's "emotional buttons". What may seem trivial to us may be important to them. If I judged TRUE here, it could set a dangerous precedent of the group (or the Speaker) deciding what is or isn't "worse than losing".

Rule 113 [..]

P.S. Careful readers may note that this CfJ was number 12; Andrew's was number 11. Yes, they are now unofficially being numbered."

Submitted by Troy Porter the Marvellous Insectoid

Statement for Judgement:
"In line with Rule 101, Rule 422 I assert that Luke Schubert (Transitional Speaker) has misinterpreted Rule 438 and that all Players that Voted FOR their own Proposals should lose 10 points or half of Mystery Player X's points (whichever is greater) immediately."

Judge selected: Luke Schubert (Transitional Speaker)

Judgement: <none>
[game ended]

Submitted by Andrew the jester

Statement for Judgement:
"I claim that, with the passage of rules 460 and 461, the speaker has failed to fulfil the following responsibility:

"A collection of all possible Titles is to be kept and maintained by The Speaker along with the rules governing the way that the Title for each Player may change, called the Links." (Rule 460)

Looking at the Thring www page (19/6/95, 1:20 Adelaide time), I saw a link to "Thring Links (not the golf course)", which took me to Paul's home page. However, the Links I found here failed to include the Title of "Grand-Poo-Bah", as described in rule 461.

My interpretation of this is that the speaker has failed to maintain the Links.

Therefore, in line with rule 422, the speaker should lose half of mystery player X's points."

Reasons/Comments:
"Also, Grand-Poo-Bah is not listed in the collection of all possible Titles there (half of MPX's points again). I didn't put this in the CFJ, as it could be that you are maintaining the collection of all possible Titles separately, but I claim that you should lose 66 points for this as well.

sorry Luke.

Thinks: Now, will Luke go with his conscience, and lose 132 points, or will he Judge that he should lose none? Or indeed, Judge to lose 66 and just keep quiet about the other 66?"

Judge selected: Luke Schubert (Transitional Speaker)

Judgement: <none>
[game ended]

Submitted by Adrian Corston has no epithet

Statement for Judgement:
"the legality of adopting the Rule Change(s) in Rule 479 cannot be determined with finality".

Reasons/Comments:
"I've done some research on Rule 479.

That all currently immutable rules be transmuted.

Transmutation is a Rule Change by Rule 105. Therefore the contents of Rule 479 describe a Rule Change. Therefore Rule 479 is a Rule which describes a Rule Change.

The transmutation described in Rule 479 is not a _proposed_ transmutation, therefore I feel it is not a Proposed Rule Change (ie. it is not a Proposal) and hence is not subject to the Rules which pertain to Proposed Rule Changes (Proposals).

Hence, the only relevant Rule which directly applies to the contents of Proposal 479 is Rule 106, which places two provisos on Rule Changes:

1. Rule Changes are only adopted if [they receive the required number of votes].

The Rule Change has not been voted on. Furthermore, there is no indication in the Rules as to what "the required number of votes" is for a Rule Change. Therefore I assert that it cannot be shown that it has received the required number of votes, nor can it be shown that it has not received the required number of votes.

Adoption of Rule 479 was legal, however it is not possible to determine whether the Rule Change(s) it describes and requires (by Rule 101) can be adopted.

I assert that adopting the Rule Changes described in Rule 479 constitute a "move" (dictionary definition: "take action or begin to take action" [Webster's Third New International Dictionary (unabridged)]).

In accordance with Rule 219 I Invoke Judgement on the Statement that [...]

[also see CfJ #16]

Judge selected: Luke Schubert (Transitional Speaker)

Judgement: TRUE
distributed Tue, 20 Jun 1995 11:21:57 +0930 (CST)

Reasons/Comments:
"This Game of Nomic is therefore ended, "with no provision for starting another game." However, see below.

[...]

Adrian Corston has no epithet is therefore the Winner of Game II of Thring.

However, I would like to declare David Wilson the Astroboy and Duncan Richer the Slakko Honorary Winners, since they both submitted CfJs which, if Judged TRUE, could have ended the Game (if I didn't wimp out and Judge them UNDECIDED :) They showed that the game currently has serious problems. I would like to declare Troy Porter the Marvellous Insectoid an Almost Winner for a valiant attempt (whose legality may now never be known).

According to Rule 219, this game has ended; I would like to suggest, however, that a new Game (theoretically independent of the old one) be started. I would further like to suggest that the Initial Rules of this new Game resemble the final Rules of the old Game, with the minimum number of changes necessary to make the new Game playable made.

I would prefer not to be the Speaker, seeing as how I'd have to resign from that position (or take a holiday) around the 10th of July (sooner that you'd think). Any applications for the position of new Speaker should be posted to me or the mailing list. The new Speaker will (presumably) have final say on the initial Rule set.

I will shortly post some recommendations for changes to the Rules, followed by some more detailed "proposed" amendments.

PS Andrew Rutherford, please don't disband this mailing list yet; we'd still like to use it for the new game."

Submitted by Adrian Corston has no epithet

Statement for Judgement:
"the legality of adopting the Rule Change(s) in Rule 479 cannot be determined with finality"

Reasons/Comments:
[see CfJ #15 above]

"2. Rule Changes are only adopted if [...] Quorum is achieved.

There is no definition of Quorum for a Rule Change, therefore I assert that it is impossible to determine if it has been achieved, and therefore it is impossible to determine if adoption of the Rule Change(s) described in Rule 479 are in accordance with the Rules.

By similar reasoning to that above, I Invoke Judgement on the Statement that [...]

[Same wording, different base for my reasoning.]

Judge selected: Luke Schubert (Transitional Speaker)

Judgement: TRUE
distributed Tue, 20 Jun 1995 11:21:57 +0930 (CST)

Reasons/Comments:
"I also deliver the Judgement TRUE for this Statement, not that it matters so much."

[also see CfJ #15]

Submitted by Anarchy

Statement for Judgement:
"2 points should be awarded to the proposers of proposals 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 502, 503 and 504 by the syntactical correctness provisions of Rule 474."

Comments:
"Is a Call for Judgement considered to be a Formal Submission to Thring Nomic? If so, someone could well submit 75 frivolous, but syntactically correct Calls for Judgement and claim 150 points. In fact, I will test the water here with a second CfJ."
[see CfJ #18]

Judge selected: Paul Schulz the ubiquitous

Judgement: TRUE
(distributed Fri, 25 Aug 1995 09:46:23 +0930 (CST))

Reasons:
">From my Collins Paperback Dictionary:

formal (adj.) 1. of or following established forms, conventions, etc.: a formal document. 2. characterised by observation of conventional forms of ceremony, behavior, etc.: a formal dinner. 3. methodical or stiff.

submission (n.) 1. an act or instance of submitting. 2. something submitted; a proposal, etc. 3. the quality or condition of being submissive. 4. the act of refering to a document, etc., for the consideration of someone else.

The definition of 'formal'-(1) clearly refers to a set of established rules and 'submission'-(2), while specifically mentioning proposals, would also apply to other correspondence via the thring mailing list, and email in general, according to 'submission'-(4).

Therefore any type of action (eg. emailing) which distributes information to other players in the game and is mentioned in the Rules is a 'formal submission'.

On the other hand, awarding the proposals according to this technically correct interpretation sets a precedent which leaves the game of Thring in a somewhat untenable (email) situation as there are many such actions which then could gain players points.

Therefore... I judge TRUE, with the Official Note to Rule 457, which will also apply to rule 474:
A formal submission shall be one of the following - the submission of a proposal, the judgement of a judge, or any other action so designated in the rules.

NB. I have deliberately left out the thring storyline (who knows how to spell 'Phredde' anyway!)."

Submitted by Anarchy

Statement for Judgement:
"A Call for Judgement is a Formal Submission to Thring Nomic for the purposes of Rule 474."

Reasons:
[see CfJ #17]

Judge selected: Troy Porter the Marvellous Insectoid

Judgement: TRUE
(distributed Fri, 25 Aug 1995 12:22:12 +0930 (CST))

Reasons:
"I don't have to give any."

Appealed by Paul Schulz the ubiquitous:
Fri, 25 Aug 1995 16:04:49 +0930 (CST)

Reasons/Comments:
"Between now and when Proposal 509 (or it's ilk) gets accepted, the Speaker may be inundated with points of order (it may be happening even now) causing large mounts of frustration on eir behalf. To avoid this, and to stop the unscupulious making life hell, vote for this Appeal."

Appeal passed 2-1 on Thu 7th Sep.

New Judge selected: PaulWay, Commander of the Avante Guard.

Judgement: TRUE
(distributed Thu, 7 Sep 1995 15:33:19 +0930 (CST))

Reasons/Comments:
"The only rules that define 'formal submissions' are Rule 457 (The Spelling Roole) and 474 (Only The Brave). 'official submissions' are defined in Rule 103. My feeling is that official submissions and formal submissions are the same. I have taken a broader definition in my own approach (as Mr. Syntax), that a formal submission is any piece of email that is sent to thring@iagu.on.net - which is assumed to get to all players of Thring. As a Call for Judgement is frequently initially disseminated via this address, or at least distributed via this address, it seems to me that a Call for Judgement is a formal submission to Thring Nomic."

Submitted by Troy Porter the Marvellous Insectoid

Statement for Judgement:
"An Official Note in the Game of Thring Nomic as per Rule 216 becomes effective at the end of the Thring Game Week in which the Official Note was submitted to the Speaker."

Reasons/Comments:
"When (and how) do you determine when an Official Note becomes part of the Rules? Paul Schulz's Judgement was returned on Thursday morning. Mine was returned not more than two hours later. My Judgement was based on the Rules in effect at the time (Web page - but it doesn't make any differences because the Speaker stated that the Official Notes were included in the Rules in his email distribution on Friday, not Thursday) and I feel that the Judgement made by me was certainly valid. It's CFJ time!

"These CFJs are directed to the Speaker :"
[see also CfJ's #20, 21, 22.]

Judge selected: Luke Schubert (Thring Speaker the Third)

Judgement: FALSE
(distributed Tue, 29 Aug 1995 09:40:43 +0930 (CST))

Reasons/Comments:
"So whether or not this CfJ is valid (see elsewhere), I'm going to judge it anyway.

[...]

"The exact time when an Official Note becomes part of the rules is not explicitly addressed, though Rule 216 (the rule mentioning Official Notes) says that "All Rules must display any Official Notes together with the wording in all Official Documents." The implication is that whenever the Rules are next seen/requested, the Official Notes should be part of the ruleset. However, we should probably also consider Game Custom and the Spirit of the Game.

"New Rules are added to the Ruleset at the beginning of the Week because that's when Voting finishes. (It would be stretching the analogy a little too far to say that therefore Official Notes from last Week become part of the Ruleset at the same time.)

"So are Rules considered to be added when the messages (saying which Proposals were accepted) are distributed, or when the Web pages get updated? I would argue the first case. Furthermore, I can provide a complete ruleset upon request as soon as possible after the Voting Results are posted.

"A related question is: does putting something on the WWW make it official, or does posting it to the list make it official? I would argue the latter case, for several reasons.

"Now let's consider Judgements; when do they become "official"? That is, when do we have to abide by them? For example, when the last game stop after Judgement #16? The answer here is surely immediately.

"Therefore, by Game Custom and analogy with the examples above, I'd say Official Notes are added to the Rules "as soon as possible".

"However, possibly a Judge only has to consider the Rules (and/or Judgements) as they were when the CfJ was made."

Submitted by Troy Porter the Marvellous Insectoid

Statement for Judgement:
"The Speaker's actions until now, with respect to Rule 107, have been completely and utterly within the Rules."

Reasons:
[see CfJ #19]

Judge selected: PaulWay, Commander of the Avante Guard.

Judgement: TRUE
(distributed Mon, 28 Aug 1995 14:21:07 +0930 (CST))

Reasons/Comments:
"I, PaulWay, Commander of the Avante Guard, after conferring with the relevant authorities, [...]

"Reason: All the clauses in rule 107 are true, allowing for small spelling errors which the speaker has the right to change since the change does not interfere with the rule's meaning or intent."

Appealed by Anarchy:
Mon, 28 Aug 1995 17:56:03 +0100 (BST)

Reasons/Comments:
"The Speaker has altered the content of Proposal 508, changing the word "proposal" to the phrase "Emergency proposal".

"Rule 107 allows minor changes that do not change the meaning or intention of the proposal. While the intentions of the proposal may remain the same, the meaning has clearly changed; from affecting all Proposals, to a small subset of Proposals. I claim that this is a major change of meaning, and hence in violation of Rule 107."

Appeal failed 1-2 on Thu 7th Sep.

Submitted by Troy Porter the Marvellous Insectoid

Statement for Judgement:
"The third Game of Thring Nomic, since its inception, has been completely in violation of Rule 114.

Reasons:
"Look at the top of each of the Rules with numbers greater than or equal to 201 and then consider Rule 102."
[also see CfJ #19]

Judge selected: Paul Schulz the ubiquitous

Judgement: FALSE
(distributed, with correction, Mon, 28 Aug 1995 13:21:15 +0930 (CST))

Reasons:
">From Rule 102: "Each Rule shall be either immutable or mutable." So within the ruleset there are only two distinct (mutually exclusive) possibilities. It also says that "This information is to be clearly shown together with the Rule's wording, number and any other defining quantities." The absence of the wording "(Immutable)" in the rules 201 and greater, clearly shows that the Rule is mutable, as otherwise it would be immutable."

Appealed by Troy Porter the Marvellous Insectoid:
(with reason) Mon, 28 Aug 1995 14:17:25 +0930 (CST)

Reasons:
"I refute this Judgement and declare that I believe it to be incorrect. I submit an Appeal to all of the Players on this basis.

"(I have got to include a reason)

"As noted elsewhere Paul has made a logical leap that seems invalid - a lack of declaration gives an implicit definition of mutability."

Appeal passed 2-1 on Thu 7th Sep.

New Judge selected: PaulWay, Commander of the Avante Guard.

Judgement: FALSE
(distributed Thu, 7 Sep 1995 15:33:19 +0930 (CST))

Reasons/Comments:
"CfJ #21 is a little more difficult. I agree with the meaning of the note - that since there is no explicit statement of mutability on each rule numbered 201 or above the rules are invalid due to 201. However, rule 102 explicitly states that 'Each Rule shall be either immutable or mutable.' There are only two states of mutability that a rule can be in by this definition, as the two options are mutually exclusive and form the complete set of mutability.

"Therefore rules are either immutable or mutable, there is no 'foo' state of mutability that a rule could be in. Now, how do we know this state? Rule 102 also states 'This information is to be clearly shown together with the Rule's wording, number and any other defining qualities.' Now what the word 'clearly' means here is the big question.

"One school of thought says that this must be marked by some identification of mutability or immutability - i.e. for each state there must be a mark, and each rule must bear a mark. The other school states that the mark is only necessary to define one particular mutability state, since the other is implied by the absence of the mark. As far as I can see, there is no other evidence in the rules to suggest a definition of 'clearly shown' that will reduce this choice to a single option.

"Therefore it seems I must go on established Thring Tradition in order to decide which view (marked or implicit) is correct. Now most Thring players are fairly pedantic and careful about the exact implementation of the rules, and not using 'Spirit of the Game' unless there seems to be an ambiguity that they cannot comprehend. Well, under this view, I would say that the correct view is that a rule is mutable if it is not explicitly marked as immutable. There are a number of justifications for this.

1. There is no other choice for the state of rules 201 and above - they must be mutable because they are not explicitly marked as immutable, like rules 101 to 119.
2. It is obvious, even to a beginner player (like myself when I started looking at Thring two months ago) that rules 201 and above could not possibly be immutable, based on point 1).
3. Rule 114 implies that there must be a mutable rule out there somewhere.
4. Without wanting to assume too much, it seems to me that the Spirit of the Game (tm) makes rules 201 and above mutable, by the way players have acted up until when these judgements were initially submitted. No-one has spoken up to protest the mutability through the entire first three weeks of the third game of Thring, which seems to me to lend support to this proof.

"In the light of all this, I feel that the judgement on the Call for Judgement #21 must be False. Furthermore, as the new rule formed by proposal 525 being accepted has made it possible for the Speaker to make the necessary changes to the rule titles to clarify the actual status of rules 201 and above, I hope e does so and clarifies this mess out of existence.

"I have spoken. Let no being challenge my word."

Submitted by Troy Porter the Marvellous Insectoid

Statement for Judgement:
"The legality of Rules with numbers greater than or equal to 201 is indeterminate because they are neither mutable nor immutable, therefore they cannot be Rules of the Game of Thring Nomic."

Judge selected: PaulWay, Commander of the Avante Guard.

Judgement: FALSE
(distributed Mon, 28 Aug 1995 14:21:07 +0930 (CST))

Reasons/Comments:
"I, PaulWay, Commander of the Avante Guard, after conferring with the relevant rules and judgements, [...]

"see CfJ #21 for the answer of whether the rules greater than 200 are mutable or immutable. Since they are, by definition, mutable, the legality of the rules with numbers greater or equal to 201 is determined. This leads me to the conclusion that they are Rules of the Game of Thring Nomic."