============================== CFJ 1286 ==============================
The Herald is required to bill Syllepsis the Zombie Transfer Tax of
0.1 Indulgences for transfering 1 Zombie to the Bank
Called by Syllepsis: 27 Mar 2001 12:35:30 GMT
Assigned to Elysion: 30 Mar 2001 02:06:19 GMT
Judged FALSE by Elysion: 03 Apr 2001 15:16:56 GMT
Rule 1948 States:
Rule 1948/2 (Power=1)
Zombie Transfer Tax
As soon as possible after a Zombie is transferred from a Player
to another entity, the Herald shall bill that Zombie's former
Master prorated Maintenance on that Zombie.
The amount of pror-ated Maintenance on a Zombie shall be equal
to 0.1 Indulgence for each nine days (or part thereof) elapsed
between the time that Player most recently took possession
of that Zombie, and the time that the transfer occurred, with a
maximum of 1 Indulgence.
Rule 1948 does not make reference to a Zombie as strictly a type of
player, and so it is sensible that it may also refer to the Currency
Zombies to which Syllepsis is Mintor and Recordkeepor.
However, it does mention the Zombie's Master, which casts some doubt. Rule
1884 (Zombie Masters) States:
Zombies are Property. The owner of a Zombie is called eir
Master. When a Player first becomes a Zombie, eir Master is the
If the Master of a Zombie is a Player, then that Player has
Power of Attorney for the Zombie, unless the Rules withdraw it
from em. A Non-Player Zombie Master is never granted Power of
Attorney for eir Zombie.
The Registrar is the Recordkeepor of each Zombie. The Registrar
must include in eir Report a schedule of all Zombies and their
The Zombie Master is just an entity having a Zombie (piece of property) in
eir possesion. This is compatible with the Currency of Zombies. Since some
Zombies are just Currency and cannot perform actions, the Power of
Attorney clause is trivial.
The last paragraph casts some doubt as to what is meant by "Recordkeepor
of each Zombie" and it must be determined if this just means that the
Registrar has the duty of keeping track of Zombies, or if the Registrar is
Recordkeepor of Zombies as a currency, to determine if I am actually the
Recordkeepor, or just the Mintor.
I may also state that I was unable to find any definition of a Zombie in
the rules, but simply that a Player becomes a Zombie under certain
The questions to be asked are: Does a rule apply to everything bearing the
name which it references, or simply to the type of entity it was
origionally intended to reference? Can a player become a unit of
Currency? Do the Rules now state that a player becomes a unit of
Currency? Am I actually the Recordkeepor of Zombies?
Judge Elysion's Arguments:
Rule 1042/12 (Zombification Due to Silence) states in part, "Any Player can
cause a Silent Player to become a Zombie..." Suppose this definition
referred to the Currency created by Syllepsis. This would imply that Players
can become units of Currency and possibly imply that Syllepsis can mint more
Players (depending on how the subset Players relates to the set Zombies).
Considering that this result seems ridiculous, and that there is strong game
custom that the Zombies created by rule 1042 are of the "normal" type
(hereafter referred to as a Zombie-Player, as opposed to a Zombie-Currency),
I conclude that in at least one rule (1042) the word "Zombie" means
Zombie-Player and not Zombie-Currency.
Unfortunately, the rule in question is rule 1948/2 (Zombie Transfer Tax).
What can we conclude about the meaning of "Zombie" in that rule?
Suppose I am reading a text about Group Theory and I read that Abelian
groups are commutative. I construct a noncommutative group and I name it
"Abelian group". The fact that I gave it that name does not magically cause
it to become commutative, nor does it cause the text to become incorrect.
The text clearly was not referring to the group I created.
I believe that the situation in the rules is similar. The rules use "Zombie"
to at least mean Zombie-Player. Syllepsis has created an entity separate
from the Zombies referred to in the rules and has given it the name
"Zombie". This does not cause the meaning of the rule to change.
I also believe this ruling is in the best interests of the game. For
example, consider the term "Player". A non-Agoran who is playing Monopoly is
a "Player" in another sense of the word; I would not consider it desirable
at all to start interpreting "Player" in the rules to refer to the Monopoly
If the rules did not give any implicit definition of "Zombie" (for example,
rule 1948 was the only rule referring to Zombies), then the situation would
be different. In such a case, we could not conclude which particular class
of entities with the name of "Zombie" the rules were referring to. However,
because the rules _do_ implicitly define "Zombie" and use it in the sense of
Zombie-Player, in the context of the ruleset I find it reasonable that
"Zombie" means Zombie-Player.
I therefore judge the statement to be FALSE.