Index ← 1514 CFJ 1515 1516 → text
==============================  CFJ 1515  ==============================

    Murphy's Voting Potential is 1.


Caller:                                 Murphy

Judge:                                  Sir Toby

Judge:                                  Elysion
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by Murphy:                       04 Jul 2004 08:10:57 GMT
Assigned to Sir Toby:                   05 Jul 2004 22:58:26 GMT
Sir Toby recused:                       14 Jul 2004 14:48:50 GMT
Assigned to Elysion:                    18 Jul 2004 21:50:09 GMT
Judged FALSE by Elysion:                23 Jul 2004 00:35:12 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

Murphy had 4 kudos and a Voting Potential of 0.  E announced
that e increased eir Voting Potential by 1, and then increased
it by 41.

The fee for increases in Voting Potential is defined as the
Political Charge times the amount of the increase.  However,
the definition of Political Charge was repealed by Proposal
4576; immediately prior to that, its value was 4.

Its value now is either
  * 4, in which case Murphy's first increase succeeded, eir
    second one failed, (a) is false and (b) is true;
  * 0, in which case Murphy's increases both succeeded, (a)
    is true and (b) is false; or
  * undefined, in which case the success of Murphy's increases
    is unclear (the Rules do not define whether a Fee-based
    action with an undefined Fee is successful).


Judge Elysion's Arguments:

* Judicial finding 1: Political Charge has no meaning under the rules other
than the literal common language meaning of its constituent words.

All definitions of "Political Charge" have been removed from the ruleset.
(2052(b) refers to it, but does not define it.) Rule 1586 thus indicates
that it ceases to exist. Rule 754(4) further requires that the phrase be
interpreted by its everyday meaning; however, the phrase itself has no
special everyday meaning beyond its constituent words. (Compare to "rat
race", which has a meaning other than "a race where rats compete".)

* Judicial finding 2: 2052(b) does not define a "fee-based action" as
described by rule 1941

The first paragraph of rule 1941 specifically requires that a fee-based
action specify a "non-negative" cost (though not necessarily integral).
Based on 754(5), "non-negative" implies the existence of a zero element and
an ordering. The common language meaning of "Political Charge" does not
reasonably admit any such element or ordering. Thus, the procedure described
in 2052(b) is not a "fee-based action" as defined by the rules.

* Judicial finding 3: raising voting potential via 2052(b) is permitted but

Rule 2052(b) defines a process for raising voting potential, and thus
regulates it. (Although there is no rule specifically to this effect, there
is a strong game custom that the "converse" of rule 101 holds: actions
regulated by the rules are permitted to the extent the rules permit them.
Whether this is implicit in the nature of a game with rules is beyond the
scope of this discussion.)

However, the procedure described by 2052(b) is not possible.

Since 2052(b) is not describing a fee-based action, the common language
interpretation applies. This is more or less the definition in 1941. Some
pseudo-code may be helpful:

if (player->paid_fee == true && fee->amount == N * Political_Charge)
        player->voting_potential += N

However, by rule 2047 kudos are measured in integer units. (Or possibly real
units -- the question of rational or irrational amounts is not specifically
addressed.) Political Charge is neither a number nor associated with any
numeric quantity, and thus N times the Political Charge is not numeric -- or
even well-defined.

A real-life analogy is receiving a bill for sqrt(-1) dollars. Clearly such a
bill is not payable by any ordinary definition of currency and payment.

Thus, Murphy attempted to perform a permitted but impossible action. Both
attempts failed, and we can therefore determine that eir Honor is

Thus I judge as follows:

1514: FALSE
1515: FALSE
1516: FALSE