Justice
From B Nomic
This Public Display mentions all non-Pondered Consultations. For more information, see Justice/Archive.
Contents |
Consultation 160
- Question: "Is the MoM ever allowed to turn the Clock On?"
- Supplicant: Sgeo
- Unbeliever: None
- Past Priests: comex, teucer
- Current Priest: BobTHJ (assigned 25 Dec 2008, nday 1-153, ndelay 1)
- Answer: None
- Status: Waiting
- Claims: None
Consultation 164
- Question: "Are mackerel fungible?"
- Supplicant: teucer
- Unbeliever: None
- Past Priests: None
- Current Priest: Charles (assigned 17 Dec 2008, nday ?-?, ndelay ?)
- Answer: YES (answered 18 Dec 2008, nday ?-?, ndelay ?)
- Status: Pondered
- Claims: None
Consultation 165
- Question: "Does there exist a square with the color (255,255,255)?"
- Supplicant: teucer
- Unbeliever: ehird
- Past Priests: Ty-Guy6
- Current Priest: Murphy (assigned 21 Dec 2008, nday ?-?, ndelay ?)
- Answer: YES (answered 22 Dec 2008, nday ?-?, ndelay ?)
- Status: Pondered
- Claims: None
Consultation 167
- Question: "Did the Pencil Sharpener do anything at all?"
- Supplicant: teucer
- Unbeliever: comex
- Past Priests: None
- Current Priest: Charles (assigned 17 Dec 2008, nday ?-?, ndelay ?)
- Answer: NO (answered 18 Dec 2008, nday ?-?, ndelay ?)
- Status: Pondered
- Claims: None
Consultation 168
- Question: "Are the answers to Pondered Consultations correct, after the Consultations become Pondered?"
- Supplicant: teucer
- Unbeliever: ehird
- Past Priests: Ivan Hope (Warrigal)
- Current Priest: w1n5t0n (assigned 21 Dec 2008, nday ?-?, ndelay ?)
- Answer: NO (answered 22 Dec 2008, nday ?-?, ndelay ?)
- Status: Pondered
- Claims: None
Consultation 169
- Question: "Do the answers to Pondered Consultations become correct when the Consultations become Pondered?"
- Supplicant: teucer
- Unbeliever: ehird
- Past Priests: Ty-Guy6
- Current Priest: w1n5t0n (assigned 21 Dec 2008, nday ?-?, ndelay ?)
- Answer: NO (answered 22 Dec 2008, nday ?-?, ndelay ?)
- Status: Pondered
- Claims: None
Skipping a few 'til someone finds the time.
178
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@socal.rr.com> wrote: > Question: Can players submit Tweaks by posting them to a Public Forum? > > Questioner's arguments: Since "submitting Tweaks" is no longer > explicitly defined by the rules, I argue that it reverts to being > defined by ordinary language plus game custom, and that these > standards lead to an answer of YES.
Standing players: JamesB, BobTHJ, 0x44, Murphy, teucer, ehird and
Billy Pilgrim. Sitting players: none.
I assign this, Consultation 178, to BobTHJ, who I selected using a dice roll from 1 to 7.
BobTHJ failed to answer within a jiffy.
ZOTTED.
179
Consultation 179:
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@socal.rr.com> wrote: > Question: Is an e-mail address described to a person by specifying > domain and MD5 checksum, but not account name (e.g. describing > cabal@jaycampbell.com as "the address at jaycampbell.com with MD5 > checksum 4dcd83b0338eaee8e8f8196f34095d18"), reasonably accessible > to that person (as required of Emergency Fora by Rule 5E0)?
When I chose a priest using the dice server, the eligible priests were JamesB (1), 0x44 (2), teucer (3), ehird (4), and Billy Pilgrim (5). I assign Consultation 179 to teucer.
Answer: YES.
Reasoning?: We need to fix this, obviously.
INCONSISTENT: (ehird?)
Pondered or awaiting reassignment? It is ambiguous, since it depends on whether or not ehird was a player.
180
Consultation 180:
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 5:19 PM, James Baxter <jebaxter@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >> From: ais523@bham.ac.uk >> To: spoon-business@nomic.net >> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:59:05 +0000 >> Subject: [s-b] Nkep >> >> I intend, without objection, to >> nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk. >> -- >> ais523 > > I object. > > I submit the following consultation with ais523 as Unbeliever: > > Is the above quoted message spam? > > Reasoning: In the message ais523 intends to take a Game Action without objection but the Game Action is incomprehensible so the message has no point and must therefore be spam.
The eligible priests are JamesB, 0x44, Murphy, and Billy Pilgrim. My four-sided die says 2, so I assign Consultation 180 to 0x44.
Answer: I answer Consultation 180 NO. Reasoning: The Supplicant shall cease abusing the justice system.
Pondered.
181
Consultation 181:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Elliott Hird <penguinofthegods@googlemail.com> wrote: > Consultation: Did j violate the rules by failing to destroy his m10 fine > punishment in a Jiffy? > > Arguments: yes, he did, and knowingly (source: ##nomic on irc)
The eligible priests are JamesB, Murphy, and Billy Pilgrim. My three-sided die says 1, so I assign Consultation 181 to JamesB.
Answer: I answer this consultation YES and I rule that, as a punishment, j shall pay a bail of m50 and shall be a prisoner until such time as that bail is paid, in accordance with Rule 5E36.
Reasoning: j was asked to pay a fine of m10 as his punishment as the answer to consultation 155. I am unsure wether he did this knowingly or not but he failed to pay his fine and must be punished.
I have made his punishment harsher with a larger fine that will now be enforced thanks to changes to rule 5E36. This harsher punishment is necessary to force people to pay fines and prevent the justice system from falling apart (although the changes to rule 5E36 handle enforcement of fines, fines issued before then must still be enforced).
Pondered.
182 and 183
Consultations 182 and 183, respectively:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 3:25 AM, James Baxter <jebaxter@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > I submit the following consultation with comex as unbeliever: > > { > Did comex break the rules by submitting the contract "Suffocation"? > > Reasoning: Rule 5E57 states that "No Player shall be made a Party to a Contract without their explicit consent, and no Contract may impose any obligation upon a non-Party" and by preventing the act of breathing which will have occurred natuarally for all players within one millisecond of the contract being made, comex assumed all Players wished to become Parties to his contract without their explicit consent. > } > > I also submit the following consultation with comex as Unbeliever: > > { > Are there Active Players, other than comex, in the Game of B Nomic? > > Reasoning: Contracts are defined by the Rules and as such can only affect things within the Rules. Breathing is not defined by the Rules and as no Players have said that they breathe as a Game Action, no players have become a party to the contract "Suffocation" and so have not Forfeited the Game. > }
The eligible priests for 182 are Murphy and Billy Pilgrim. My two-sided die says 1, so I assign Consultation 182 to Murphy. The eligible priest for 183 is Billy Pilgrim, so I assign Consultation 183 to him.
Murphy and Billy Pilgrim both failed to answer within a jiffy.
Tyler: I Assign Consultation 182 to j.
184
Consultation 184:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Craig Daniel <teucer@pobox.com> wrote: > Ehird wants to know what happened to eir mackerel. I think they're > gone, but the rules don't make this happen explicitly, so why not use > the judgment system to find out? I submit the following Consultation: > > {Are there any Mackerel formerly owned by ehird?}
The eligible priests are BobTHJ, Tyler, w1n5t0n, 0x44, JamesB, Murphy, and Billy Pilgrim. My seven-sided die says 3, so I assign Consultation 184 to w1n5t0n.
Answer: NO. Reasoning: The rules are silent on this matter, so I will legislate from the bench. When a player forfeits, their mackerel cease to exist. The answer to this specific consultation arguably would have been YES if ehird had transferred any mackerel to anyone since the era reset, but I can find no evidence that he did so.
INCONSISTENT: 0x44, (ehird?), Billy Pilgrim
CONSISTENT: comex, Warrigal, JamesB
Pondered.
185
Consultation 185:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Craig Daniel <teucer@pobox.com> wrote: > Noting that ownable game objects can in theory be owned by Nobody, > they don't need to get destroyed despite the lack of a provision for > said destruction. On the other hand, only legal entities may own > currency, though, so they can't be Nobody's - at least, I don't think > so. > > I submit the following follow-up consultation: > > {Are the Mackerel formerly owned by ehird now owned by Nobody?}
The eligible priests are BobTHJ, Tyler, 0x44, JamesB, Murphy, and Billy Pilgrim. My six-sided die says 2, so I assign Consultation 185 to Tyler.
Not answered by Tyler in time.
Tyler: > Even counting ehird as a Player, Consultation 184 was tallied Consistent and is now Pondered. (I'm not counting my claim, since I was too late.) ehird's macks no longer exist.
> Therefore, I ZOT the Waiting Consultation 185, since it's relevance depended on the existence of the aforementioned macks.}
186
I submit the following Consultation: "Did Warrigal violate any of his obligations under the Ministry of Questions?" Arguments: I did take a while to assign these Consultations; I don't know whether or not I did them all within a Jiffy (precedent is that rdays stop during Emergencies). I also haven't finished my Public Display, nor updated it in a while, though I have received a compliment on it, if that counts for anything. I assign this Consultation the number 186.
The eligible priests are BobTHJ, teucer, 0x44, JamesB, Murphy, and Billy Pilgrim. My six-sided die says 3, so I assign Consultation 186 to 0x44.
Answer: NO Reasoning: Per Rule 5e9, Rule 5e0 takes precedent over 5e14 and 5e41 since neither claim precedence. Rule 5e0 states quite plainly that game time is stopped during an Emergency except for those exceptions made within the rule itself. The only exception made for game timekeeping in Rule 0 is the Pause. Since a jiffy is given in Absolute time, the Deadlines for Ministerial obligations occurring during an Emergency /do not occur/.
Pondered.
187
I submit the following Consultation, because ehird asked me to: "Did j violate the rules by turning the clock on?" I assign this Consultation the number 187.
The eligible priests are BobTHJ, teucer, JamesB, Murphy, and Billy Pilgrim. My five-sided die says 2, so I assign Consultation 187 to teucer.
Answer: YES, and assign Bail of m25 and a Term of one nweek.
Pondered.
9999 (+i?)
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 5:04 PM, 0x44 <bnomic@indistinct.org> wrote: > I submit the following consultation: Is the External Force formerly known as > ehird still a Player?
Arguments: Rule 5e10 states that game actions that involve impossible or ambiguous calculations simply do not occur. The fate of ehird's mackerel is in question, as the rules do not specify what happens to game objects when their owner no longer exists, and the rules do not provide any means for Consultations to alter the game state - except in the case of 5e10.
Rule 5e18 states unequivocally that no restrictions may be placed on when a player may forfeit. However, due to the possible ambiguity of the game state calculation surrounding ehird's macks, Rule 5e10 would take precedence since neither rule claim precedence over the other.
Rule 5e10 does, however, grant a Consultation the power to determine what meets the criteria of an ambiguous, impossible, or unreasonable calculation. Therefore, whether or not ehird is a Player is currently impossible to determine until a Consultation has been Answered.
ehird wrote: "I assign this Consultation the number 9999. . . I assign consultation 9999 to Teucer."
Answer: PARADOX
Reasoning: Citing arguments two through four above /*Oracle's Note: This is in reference to his reasoning for Consultation 9999+i*/ as reasons why it can't be TRUE and the inverse of argument one to invalidate a FALSE judgment, I answer Consultation 9999 PARADOX.
CONSISTENT: Tyler
INCONSISTENT: j
Warrigal wrote: "I assign this, Consultation 9999+i, to teucer."
Answer: FALSE
Reasoning: First, I cannot consistently answer it TRUE, as no Consultation with that number can both exist and have that as the correct answer. But this is largely irrelevant. Second, ehird resigned. E claims this required calculation of something ambiguous. Longstanding game custom is that this means that what action is being taken must be unambiguous; actions whose details require referencing results of the busy beaver function for which the output is unknown, for example, are not valid. Forfeiture does not require anyone to calculate anything to understand that it is, in fact, forfeiture. Third, if ehird's assertion that an action which requires others to calculate something ambiguous to know its effects counts and is thus afflicted by the aforementioned rule, it is still irrelevant. Figuring out what the rules say is not the same as calculating a number, and thus the fate of ehird's macks, while ambiguous, is not a calculation. Fourth, rule 5e1 states that the only true name of this game is B Nomic, which logically entails the assertion that this is a game. Since "game" is nowhere defined in the ruleset, it has its most common English meaning, which is an activity with rules which people engage in for recreation. It is inherent in the nature of leisure activities, including games, that they be voluntary, ergo, rule 5e1 allows players to stop playing. (They can and generally should, however, specify the results of such for those that are continuing to play.) Thus even if rule 5e10 had attempted to stop ehird forfeiting, Rule 5e1 takes precedence over it.
CONSISTENT: Tyler
189
I initiate a consultation on the question "Is it true that consultations have the power to affect the gamestate, once they have been Pondered?", with unbeliever Murphy [because he's too sane to give the answer I want]. I hope this is Consistently ruled Yes. -- ais523
Consultation 189. I assign it to Priest 0x44.
190
I submit the following Consultation: {Is Fred an External Force?}
Arguments: The Beast is a Player and an Outsider (Rule 5E50). An Outsider is, by definition, an External Force (Rule 5E4). Ergo, the Beast is an External Force. However, an External Force is something that exists independently of the game (Rule 5E4), which the Beast does not. Ergo, the Beast must not be an External Force. E thus cannot be an Outsider either, and thus is not a Player. Unfortunately, rule 5E4 takes precedence over Rule 5E50.
- teucer
Consultation 190. I assign it to Priest JamesB.
191
I submit the following Consultation:
"Is it possible for a Player to forfeit in the past, by submitting in the present a message that he does so?"
Some of my Reasoning: I argue for no. Reality dictates that nobody can do things in the past. If real life physics don't apply, then what's to say anybody can know what's really going on in this Nomic? An omnipotent devil might be tricking you into thinking that the Internet exists. The game is based on certain assumptions.
This is Consultation 191, and I assign it to Priest teucer. (Which I figure is fair, since I believe he'll go for YES. I don't remember how to use the dice server, and I don't especially feel like looking it up.)
-- -Tyler
I answer this YES (per Warrigal's arguments) with the observation that having the ability to do so is really kind of dumb.
- teucer
INCONSISTENT: comex
192
j wrote:
I activate my Tweak that allows Tweaks to be submitted.
I submit a consultation { May a Player now submit a tweak? }
Tyler wrote: I assign to Priest 0x44.
193
0x44 wrote:
I submit the following Consultation specifying "J" as the Unbeliever: { Did J destroy all of the game's mackerel save his own? } Arguments: There's no plural subject in the sentence "Any Legal Entity may destroy any amount of mackerel in their possession as a Game Action." so the impersonal pronoun refers to the singular "Legal Entity". The word "their" is used interchangeably in English to serve the purposes of the impersonal singular pronoun, and the impersonal plural pronoun. This is not inappropriate, or ambiguous in normal communication, as whether or not the word is plural or singular is picked up from context. If however, the meaning is ambiguous in B, and cannot be picked up from context, then the game action did not occur as the game action requires the calculation of an impossible or ambiguous number. So, if the game action destroying everyone's mackerel succeeded, the game action did not occur due to the game state ambiguity.
Consultation 193. I assign it to Priest JamesB.
