Nomicron.org / Page List

Round 6
(ended)
Turn 6 - 31
(ended)
2006-11-19
22:20 CST

Not logged in

Home
Players
Public Forum

Judgments
Poker Tournament

Rules

All Rules

Convention

Immutable

Mutable

Rule Changes
Proposals

History
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
Current

Judgments

5301

Creator Jef

Create Date 2005-11-08 09:31

Statement A player cannot give himself points.

Arguments darkfox's attempt to give himself 500 points is not legal because points are regulated by the rules. I believe darkfox is attempting to use rule 113's freedom of action clause to do this. However, since rule 109 explicitly regulates points, this action is not allowed unless another rule explicitly specifies that it is. This does not fall under 113's criteria of "not prohibited or regulated by a rule".

Judge Day

Decision True

Reasoning What else can I say? Jef said it pretty well. Points are regulated. Mot much else to it.

5302

Creator Looney

Create Date 2005-11-14 12:16

Statement Looney and Darkfox should have received points for their passed proposals last turn as per Rule 305.1

Arguments This is a timing question, and I really don't have a good argument either way. So I'll leave it to the judge. Enjoy!

Judge Breadman

Decision False

Reasoning
This is indeed a tricky timing question, but I see two lines of reasoning that point in the same direction. First, the trigger for the point gain is passage of a proposal. However, the point gain effect itself went into effect as a result of the same trigger, so it couldn't have been in effect at the time the trigger ocurred.

Second, Rule 112.1 addresses a similar issue: whether a rule-change can affect its own validity. It rules that rule-changes cannot prevent themselves, implying that rule-changes take effect slightly after the adoption of the proposal that puts them into effect.

5303

Creator Ouroboros

Create Date 2006-01-11 20:27

Statement Rule 321 ("Lookout! Ninjas!") conflicts with Rule 101 ("Rule Changes").

Arguments Rule 101 defines permissible rule-changes. Rule 321 attempts to impose changes on the text of rules, which is not a rule-change as defined in Rule 101.

Judge Breadman

Decision False

Reasoning Rule 101 defines a set of actions as rule-changes, but its wording does not prohibit other things from being called rule-changes. It does not permit or prohibit anything; it merely defines.

Rule 321 (ignoring spelling errors) describes an action which can modify the rules, and conditions under which it occurs, but does not identify whether or not that action is a rule-change.

If a ninja attack is an "amendment" of a rule, then it is also a rule-change; otherwise, it is not a rule-change. There is no conflict between these two rules. Whether either conflicts with any other rule is beyond the scope of this RFJ.

5304

Creator Ouroboros

Create Date 2006-01-11 20:27

Statement Effects of Rule 321 ("Lookout! Ninjas!) cannot be applied.

Arguments Rule 321 provides for changes to mutable rules, however it does not propose rule-changes in a manner that submits these rule-changes for vote, therefore, the rule-changes created by Rule 321 are never adopted.

Judge Erez

Decision False

Reasoning The question here is whether a rule can be changed other than by vote. According to Rule 102.1: "All rule-changes proposed in the proper way ... will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes." While this agrees with Ouroboros, the question of "proper manner" is left open. The argument can be that Rule 321 changes rule in an "improper" yet legal manner, and thus not subjected to the conditions in Rule 102.1. According to Rule 113.1: "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it." Following this logic, and after reviewing every rule regarding rule change, it is never explicitly forbidden to change rules in the manner Rule 321 suggest, and the existance of Rule 321 allows rule to be changed without a vote according to Rule 113.1.

5305

Creator Breadman

Create Date 2006-01-17 08:58

Statement A successful ninja attack amends the attacked rule.

Arguments The question here is whether "amend" refers only to amendment proposals, or to any change to the text of an existing rule. If True, this RFJ implies that under 105.1, ninja attacks will already increment a rule's version number, rendering proposal 327 redundant. However, it may also have other effects which may need to be considered.

Judge Royalfire

Decision False

Reasoning The definition of amend:
a·mend v. a·mend·ed, a·mend·ing, a·mends v. tr.
1. To change for the better; improve: amended the earlier proposal so as to make it more comprehensive.
2. To remove the faults or errors in; correct.
3. To alter (a legislative measure, for example) formally by adding, deleting, or rephrasing.

As you can see,in the senses other than the primary sense, amend implies improve.
A ninja attack from Lookout, Ninja! does not implicitly improve. It in the majority of cases makes the rule less effective, and adds errors. This is contrary to the spirit of the word "amend" if not the letter of the term as used in the game. Ninja attack is therfore not an amendment.
As a contrasting example, if the Samurai rule passed, a Samurai change would be, as the secret society's purpose would be to fix rules. A proposal or amendment also falls under this category, as the majority voting for it think that the change is for the better.

5306

Creator Looney

Create Date 2006-01-17 15:54

Statement No rule-change (as defined in Rule 101.1) can take effect unless it is voted upon by some group of players.

Arguments This is a direct consequence of Rule 104.1.

104.1 Ex Post Facto Changes Forbidden
No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may have retroactive application.

If there is no vote, then the rule-change cannot take effect, even if the rule-change is permitted per Rule 113.1.

NB: RFJ 5305 will determine whether ninja attacks are rule-changes per Rule 101.1. If that RFJ and this one are both ruled true, then ninja attacks will have no effect. If one of these two RFJs is ruled false, then ninja attacks may be effectual.

Judge pitboss

Decision True

Reasoning If a rule-change doesn't have a "moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it" to take effect after, it cannot take effect at all.

5307

Creator Jef

Create Date 2006-01-25 09:54

Statement Any change to a rule is a rule change.

Arguments This may seem obvious, but the recent RFJs on the matter still leave this issue unresolved. RFJ 5305 concluded that Ninja attacks are not amendments... but it doesn't necessarily follow that they are not "rule changes"... Rule 101 defines a set of types of rule changes, but does not restrict other types from being declared. It is my contention that Rule 321 Lookout! Ninja! sets up a new type of "rule change" whereby a single word is removed.

Since RFJ 5306 concludes that no rule change can take effect without some group of players voting on it, a true ruling on this case would nullify any effects of Rule 321.

Judge Looney

Decision False

Reasoning I cite as precedent the situation that existed in Round 3, where under a ruleset similar to the present one, trivialities and tweaks were considered not to be rule changes as per that round's rule 103. Said rule 103 does not differ from the current rule 101 in any way that would affect the present situation. Therefore, it is possible for the text of rules to be altered without it being a rule change as per rule 101.

Note that my ruling on the general statement does not actually indicate whether ninja attacks are rule changes as per rule 101. However, in my opinion, they are not.

5308

Creator Royalfire

Create Date 2006-03-10 10:23

Statement A Cylon can choose to steal the Cool Shades even if no player posseses them.

Arguments Rule 337 Cool Shades states that the Cylon can steal the Cool Shades and gains them at the beginning of the next turn if they do so. If any player possesed the Cool Shades and no one currently posseses them, then the Ninjas posses them. The Cylon can presumably use their awesome power to find the Ninjas and steal the Cool Shades from them, so they should be able to do this if they choose.

Judge Looney

Decision True

Reasoning Here's what the rule actually says: "The Cylon can spend 10 style points to take the Cool Shades. If they do, they gain the Cool Shades during the next interim unless Ninjas attack." There's nothing in there about the player who has the Cool Shades before the Cylon takes them. It doesn't even suggest that they're being taken from another player. Therefore, it is obviously true that the Cylon can take the Cool Shades in the case when no player has them. Heck, the ninjas need not even be involved: the Cylon might just find them lying on the ground. After all, Cool Shades on a ninja are just redundant.

5309

Creator Royalfire

Create Date 2006-03-21 12:42

Statement Erez' failure to pass judgement on Royalfire's RFJ is illegal.

Arguments Rule 343, Anti-Negativity, says that a player may not tak an action that would cause their score to drop below zero. Erez' failure to pass judgement sent his score to -10, and is therefore illegal. A corollary to this could be that he should therefore win the round by causing a situation in which the rules do not allow continuation.

Judge Day

Decision False

Reasoning Failure is not an act. Thus, failing to act is not an act. I think that Anti-Negativity in spirit, if not in letter, implies some level of agentivness. The reason that the ability to make proposals needed an exception was because it is an act in and of its self.

5310

Creator Jef

Create Date 2006-03-22 18:36

Statement No player is ever Under Pressure.

Arguments Given that:
- Upon passage of Rule 342, given a 25% chance, no player was chosen to be Under Pressure,
- The rule describes neither a mechanism by which a new player is chosen to be Under Pressure, nor when the 25% chance is re-checked,

I assert that the effects of Rule 342 took place only once, and are not to take place again. Therefore, due to the outcome of the initial check, no player will ever be Under Pressure from the current form of the rule.

Judge Day

Decision True

Reasoning How amusing. I concur. There is no time-frame given for retrying the 25% chance. This should be true until someone ammends this rule.

5311

Creator Looney

Create Date 2006-04-20 12:21

Statement I currently have a score of -5. Therefore, I cannot take any actions except for proposal submissions or actions that would result in a gain of at least 5 points. In particular, I cannot take actions that do not affect my score. Furthermore, this means that if this RFJ is ruled true, its submission was illegal, and thus there never was an RFJ to rule true.

Arguments 343.1 Anti-Negativity
Text A player may not take any action that would leave their score below zero, nor may they bet, share, or otherwise spend points they do not have, and negative points cannot be used for these purposes. The sole exception is that players are always allowed to propose rule changes, even if that action could lead them to a negative point total. This rule takes precedence over rules that can affect player points.

Actions that do not increase my score have the result of leaving my score below zero. Therefore, I may not take such actions. Fun, isn't it? Maybe I should just quit. Or is that also illegal? It certainly wouldn't increase my score.

Judge Ouroboros

Decision False

Reasoning The submission of this RFJ was valid. There is no issue of paradox between the existence of this RFJ and Rules 210 and 343; nor is there any paradox between Rules 110 and 343.

Rule 210 (Requests for Judgment) does not have any provision to reward or penalize players who make RFJs. There is no reason, then, to expect that Rule 343 (Anti-Negativity) imposes requirements on who can submit an RFJ.

According to Rule 110, "A player always has the option to resign from the game rather than continue to play or incur a game penalty."

5312

Creator Looney

Create Date 2006-04-20 12:28

Statement RFJ 5311 creates a paradox per rule 215.

Arguments There are so many ways in which this could be paradoxical. First off, there's the question of whether it was legal or illegal for me to submit that RFJ (and this one). Then there's the question of whether it's legal for the judge (who may or may not have been legally appointed) to give a ruling.

Also, there's the question of whether it is or is not legal for this RFJ to end the game. After all, if I can't legally submit RFJs, then I didn't actually submit one that invokes 215. Which means that if this RFJ is ruled true, it creates another paradox in itself, as we don't know whether the round does or does not end.

Is that enough of a mess for you, your honor?

Judge pitboss

Decision False

Reasoning

5313

Creator Looney

Create Date 2006-04-25 00:05

Statement Rule 343 prevents a player with a negative score from taking any actions except the following:
1. proposal submissions
2. actions which increase the player's score to a nonnegative value
3. actions which are explicitly permitted by a rule that takes precedence over 343

Arguments This is a more general version of 5311. I would have appealed Ouroboros' ruling on that RFJ directly, but the precedence argument that Jef made in his forum post may have been sufficient to render 5311 false (hence my third group of permitted actions in this RFJ's text).

It is certainly true, as Ouroboros argued, that Rule 343 was not intended to interfere with actions (such as RFJ submission) that don't affect player scores. However, the wording of that rule is flawed. As a result, I believe that it does indeed interfere.

The rule text says "A player may not take any action that would leave their score below zero." This does not say action that would cause the score to drop below zero. It says action that would LEAVE the score below zero. Actions that don't affect scores at all do, by definition, leave scores as they are. As my score is presently below zero, Rule 343 would prevent me from taking such actions.

Judge Jef

Decision True

Reasoning Looney is indeed correct. As I pondered this case, at first I thought it obviously true, but that it didn't matter... no actions would be disallowed except those that had to do with points. At this point in the game, there are no scenarios that negatively affect current players. However, later rules could introduce actions that do... unless they explicitly take precedence over Rule 343.

I would fully support the petitioner in an amendment of the text of Rule 343 that corrects this oversight, so long as it keeps the original intent of Rule 343 intact--to prevent a loophole like the one that allowed Looney to win Round 4 (though it was a great win!)

5314

Creator Jef

Create Date 2006-05-13 22:53

Statement In reference to Rule 357 "Launch the Alert Vipers!", it is impossible to determine who the Commander(s) are or if there is chaos in the fleet, constituting a paradox as defined by Rule 215.

Arguments Rule 357 "Launch the Alert Vipers!"(1) specifies, "At the beginning of every turn, the player with highest of target score divided by the sum of style and number of points ((target score)/(points + style)) becomes the Commander."

This rule does not indicate that the Commander is chosen only among active players, so inactive players must be included. However, inactive players do not have style values, as Rule 313 "Do it with style"(2) specifies that only active players do. Therefore, it is impossible to complete this calculation for inactive players.

Even if the missing argument is considered to be a style value of 0, it is still impossible to determine the status of the Commander, as several inactive players have a point total of 0. This would leave the formula with a denominator of 0. In arithmetic with real numbers, division by zero is considered invalid(3).

So, either way the missing style argument is interpreted leads to the inability to determine the status of the Commander, constituting a paradox because it cannot be determined with finality. Rule 215 "The Paradox Rule"(4) thus comes into play and the round should end.

REFERENCES:
(1) Rule 357 "Launch the Alert Vipers!"
(2) Rule 313 "Do it with style"
(3) Wikipedia-Division by zero
(4) Rule 215 "The Paradox Rule"

Judge Ouroboros

Decision True

Reasoning This paradox is sustained and it is my opinion that it ends Round Six of Nomicron, with Jef declared winner.

While the rule in question was too broad in its reference to players both active and inactive, it also did not account for new players with an initial score of zero.

As much as we may understand a division by zero to result in no useful numeric value (or no ordinal), it is technically a number that cannot be compared to real numbers.

The issue of division by zero could be addressed during the Convention, and defined as a non-number that is removed from comparison.