24. Submitted by Craig
Assigned for Judgement to unlin_e
|
Date of Submission: 2003-05-02 22:57:00
|
| For some period of time prior to the submission of this CFJ but after the creation of the Nomic Market, Craig had zero Coins for the purposes of Thermo. |
|
Judged False by unlin_e
I think your analysis is perfectly reasonable, and based on precedent of your judgement of 2[CFJ 21], I judge 4[CFJ 23] TRUE and 5[CFJ 24] to be false. 4[CFJ 23] does not "alter the gamestate" and 5[CFJ 24] does. |
| |
23. Submitted by Craig
Assigned for Judgement to unlin_e
|
Date of Submission: 2003-05-02 22:57:00
Date of Inclusion: 2003-05-19 16:41:00
|
| For some period of time prior to the submission of this CFJ but after the creation of the Nomic Market, Craig had zero Coins for the purposes of the Market. |
|
Judged True by unlin_e
I think your analysis is perfectly reasonable, and based on precedent of your judgement of 2[CFJ 21], I judge 4[CFJ 23] TRUE and 5[CFJ 24] to be false. 4[CFJ 23] does not "alter the gamestate" and 5[CFJ 24] does. |
| |
22. Submitted by Craig
Assigned for Judgement to Dr Ducker
|
Date of Submission: 2003-05-02 22:57:00
|
| Craig successfully aquired three thousand BNS within the Market prior to the submission of this CFJ. |
|
Judged False by Dr Ducker
I am somewhat at a loss as to how I could possibly make an assesment of what has transpired within another game. However, considering that this would be written into the Thermo ruleset, were I to find it true, I must therefore judge this CFJ to be FALSE. |
| |
21. Submitted by Craig
Assigned for Judgement to Dr Ducker
|
Date of Submission: 2003-05-02 22:57:00
Date of Inclusion: 2003-05-17 22:31:00
|
| Craig successfully entered the Market prior to the submission of this CFJ. |
|
Judged True by Dr Ducker
First, for reference, the following rules:
0.5 There are no restrictions on players entering the Nomic Market.
4.4 Anything not prohibited by the rules is permitted.
6.5 No changes to the gamestate may occur except as defined in the ruleset.
I will consider this in two distinct portions:
First, if considered as the ruleset currently stands, and because there are no prohibitions against retroactive effects, this portion is trivially true.
Second, the act referred to by "entered the Market", if it occurred, did so before rule 0.5 was part of the ruleset. Therefore, if we consider this in the absence of said rule, we must consider how the other rules would apply, and it appears that only rules 4.4 and 6.5 have any potential effect. Since there are no portions of the ruleset, aside from 0.5, which in any way refer to "enter[ing] the Market", it is trivial to recognize that there are no direct prohibitions, and thus the needs of rule 4.4 are satisfied. Which means we only have to answer the question of whether "enter[ing] the Market" alters the gamestate or not, in order to determine this judgement. If it did alter the gamestate, then it is trivially false, and if not, then trivially true.
I contend that as the ruleset currently stands (with or without 0.5), there is no alteration of the gamestate which occurs simply by "enter[ing] the Market", note that some of Craig's other potential "actions" "within the Market" could potentially have gamestate altering concepts, but not es simple entrance to it. Thus, this portion is also true. |
| |
20. Submitted by Craig
Assigned for Judgement to Josh
|
Date of Submission: 2003-05-02 21:27:00
Date of Inclusion: 2003-05-18 00:56:00
|
| There are currently no restrictions in the rules on players entering the Nomic Market. |
|
Judged True by Josh
So far as I can tell, this is both implicitly and explicitly TRUE. |
| |
19. Submitted by Craig
Assigned for Judgement to bd
|
Date of Submission: 2003-05-01 00:44:00
Date of Inclusion: 2003-05-15 01:23:00
|
| Because the proposal 'stop stealing my damn coins' will, if passed, create a rule which must be assigned a number which not only cannot be assigned but cannot exist, the clause in question must be ignored. |
|
Judged True by bd
|
| |
18. Submitted by Craig
Assigned for Judgement to Dr Ducker
|
Date of Submission: 2003-05-01 00:44:00
|
| Because the proposal 'stop stealing my damn coins' will, if passed, create a rule which must be assigned a number which not only cannot be assigned but cannot exist, it is acceptable to give the resulting rule a different number. |
|
Judged False by Dr Ducker
|
| |
17. Submitted by Craig
Assigned for Judgement to bd
|
Date of Submission: 2003-04-26 01:52:00
Date of Inclusion: 2003-05-03 01:57:00
|
| It is not necessary for a registration proposal to have a posessor. |
|
Judged True by bd
8.x specifies that non-players can submit registration proposals. This takes precedence over 9.7 . |
| |
16. Submitted by Dr Ducker
Assigned for Judgement to bd
|
Date of Submission: 2003-04-25 08:11:00
|
A registration proposal is identical to a proposal in all respects, except, that until such time as it passes, it is not a Thing, and therefore need not be possessed by anyone or anything.
A registration proposal which passes becomes a normal proposal, and thus a Thing, in the possession of the submitter of the proposal.
A registration proposal which fails to pass also fails to become a Thing. |
|
Judged False by bd
|
| |
15. Submitted by Craig
Assigned for Judgement to unlin_e
|
Date of Submission: 2003-04-17 01:38:00
|
| An appelate justice may reverse eir judgement until all three appelate justices have returned a verdict. |
|
Judged False by unlin_e
|
| |
14. Submitted by Craig
Assigned for Judgement to bd
|
Date of Submission: 2003-04-17 01:38:00
|
| A judge whose judgement has been appealed may reverse eir judgement until all three appelate justices have returned a verdict. |
|
Judged False by bd
|
| |
13. Submitted by Craig
Assigned for Judgement to bd
|
Date of Submission: 2003-04-17 01:38:00
|
| A judge whose judgement has not been appealed may reverse eir judgement. |
|
Judged False by bd
|
| |
12. Submitted by Craig
Assigned for Judgement to Dr Ducker
|
Date of Submission: 2003-04-17 01:38:00
|
| The statement of the judge in rule 11.5 refers only to the one which delivers judgement. |
|
Judged False by Dr Ducker
|
| |
11. Submitted by Craig
Assigned for Judgement to Dr Ducker
Appeal Assigned to bd, Josh, and unlin_e
|
Date of Submission: 2003-04-12 14:00:00
Date of Appeal: 2003-04-13 14:45:00
|
| When a proposal creates a rule which declares a Thing to exist, the proposal is not seen as directly creating that Thing for the purposes of the First Sacred Law. |
|
Judged False by Dr Ducker
The sole purpose of the action which has instigated this Call for Judgement is to create a singular new Thing (The office of the Stenotype), therefore its creation would be a direct result of the passing of the proposal containing said action. If the action in question had specified a conditional, even one that was satisfied at the time of the containing proposals passage, then the creation of the office would not have been a direct result of the proposals passage. Even something as simple as:
"
Rule 10.5 is created in the group OFFICES, reading:
At the time of this rules creation, a new office known as the Stenotype is created, whose possessor, the Stenographer, is responsible for tracking all past judgements and for assigning Judges and Appelate Justices.
"
This would also separate the office from its creating rule for SSL purposes. But, be careful with needing to modify the office later, 10.5 should not be destroyed and re-created with the same initial phrase, as that would create a second Stenotype, rather, a new rule would need to be added with the appropriate modifications contained within it. |
Judged False by bd
|
Not yet Judged by Josh
|
Judged False by unlin_e
|
| |
10. Submitted by Craig
Assigned for Judgement to bd
Appeal Assigned to PsychicNathan, Dr Ducker, and Josh
|
Date of Submission: 2003-04-11 03:39:00
Date of Appeal: 2003-04-18 16:57:00
|
Rule 7.3 decreased the number of points in the game by 1 upon Josh's deregistration.
A random player must therefore receive a negative number of points. |
|
Judged True by bd
It decreased his points by one, making his points negative. This was then distributed randomly. |
Not yet Judged by PsychicNathan
|
Judged False by Dr Ducker
In examining this CFJ, the question seems to be are the phrases, "one of eir points is destroyed" and "decreased the number of points in the game", equivalent. First, it seems to me that the text of rule 7.3 is specific to a point in the possession of the player in question, and not simply more generally within the game. If Josh had had a point when he deregistered then the effect of deregistration would trivially prove this CFJ true, however, since Josh did not have a point when he deregistered the question then appears to shift to whether a non-existant Thing can be destroyed. This issue seems to go to the spirit of the game as a whole, and it seems to me to be against that spirit to have "negative" Things.
Additionally, I find the second sentence to be dangerously ambiguous as a stand-alone rule, which it would become if this CFJ is found true. |
Judged False by Josh
|
| |
9. Submitted by Craig
Assigned for Judgement to unlin_e
|
Date of Submission: 2003-04-11 03:39:00
Date of Inclusion: 2003-05-29 17:06:00
|
| Rule 7.3 did not destroy any points upon Josh's deregistration of April 10, 2003, as there was nothing to destroy. |
|
Judged True by unlin_e
there was nothing to destroy. |
| |
8. Submitted by Dr Ducker
Assigned for Judgement to Craig
|
Date of Submission: 2003-04-10 23:08:00
Date of Inclusion: 2003-05-27 02:51:00
|
| The proposal, known as "Proposal 3", Submitted on Thursday, the 10th of April 2003 at 10:16pm by unlin_e, was submitted illegally under Rule 1.1 . |
|
Judged True by Craig
CFJ #7 is not materially different. It was judged false and appealed. My appelate judgement was TRUE, and for all the same reasons I judge CFJ #8 TRUE. I also note that this precedent should simplify the appeal on CFJ #7; if it doesn't there needs to be some fixing to the judicial system. |
| |
7. Submitted by Dr Ducker
Assigned for Judgement to bd
Appeal Assigned to Josh, Craig, and unlin_e
|
Date of Submission: 2003-04-10 23:08:00
Date of Appeal: 2003-04-13 09:05:00
|
| The proposal, known as "Proposal 1", Submitted on Thursday, the 10th of April 2003 at 10:44am by Cassie Harley, was submitted illegally under Rule 1.1 . |
Will be written(?) on: 2003-05-29 17:06:00 |
Judged False by bd
|
Not yet Judged by Josh
|
Judged True by Craig
|
Judged True by unlin_e
|
| |
6. Submitted by bd
Assigned for Judgement to Dr Ducker
|
Date of Submission: 2003-04-10 23:42:00
|
The title of section 14 is 'Extra rules'.
The comment of section 14 is 'These are used in the early game to allow the ruleset to grow.' |
|
Judged False by Dr Ducker
There is no "section 14" at the time that this Call for Judgement was made, therefore neither sentence can be considered to be true. Had the CFJ referred simply to "a new section", or even better had it conditionally specified the creation of a section, then it is possible I could have judged this true.
For instance if the Call had read:
"If this sentence is added to the ruleset, then, at that time, a new group of rules is created, which is entitled 'Extra Rules', which contains the comment 'These are used in the early game to allow the ruleset to grow.', and which contains any rules whose number is greater than or equal to 14.0 and less than 15.0 ." |
| |
5. Submitted by bd
Assigned for Judgement to Craig
|
Date of Submission: 2003-04-10 23:42:00
|
| 14.5 This thing is a rule. |
|
Judged False by Craig
|
| |
4. Submitted by bd
Assigned for Judgement to Cassie
|
Date of Submission: 2003-04-10 23:42:00
|
| 14.4 This thing is a rule. |
|
Judged False by Cassie
|
| |
3. Submitted by bd
Assigned for Judgement to Dr Ducker
|
Date of Submission: 2003-04-10 23:42:00
|
| 14.3 This thing is a rule. |
|
Judged False by Dr Ducker
I do so due to the fact that this CFJ contains a number which is not necessarily the rule number under which it would be added according to rules 13.0 and 13.1 . |
| |
2. Submitted by bd
Assigned for Judgement to unlin_e
|
Date of Submission: 2003-04-10 23:42:00
Date of Inclusion: 2003-04-25 14:57:00
|
| 14.2 This thing is a rule. |
|
Judged True by unlin_e
|
| |
1. Submitted by bd
Assigned for Judgement to Cassie
|
Date of Submission: 2003-04-10 23:42:00
|
| 14.1 This thing is a rule. |
|
Judged False by Cassie
|
| |
