Conflict i
III v. Institute: The Case of the Similar Numerals Ruled against
Claimant: the Secretary of Hellos, Dept III · Respondent: the Porter · Heard March.
Claim. Department III complained that the Institute’s crest, “II”, looks too similar to the “ii” of Department II, and therefore favours Remarkable Words. The Secretary demonstrated the resemblance with two cards held at arm’s length, then at increasing distances, then with one eye closed.
Defence. The Porter replied that the numerals predate the complaint by seven years, that capitals are not small letters even when squinted at, and that Department III had approved the crest in 2019 by failing to object to it.
Holding. Ruled against III. Resemblance is not favouritism, and squinting is not evidence. The crest stays. Costs: one box of biscuits, plain, to the Porter.
Conflict ii
I v. VIII: The Custody of Thing Ruled against
Claimant: the Registrar of Small Objects, Dept I · Respondent: the Keeper of Small Words · Heard April.
Claim. Department I alleged that “thing” is an object, not a word, pointed at a shelf of things, and demanded its transfer to the Catalogue as Ref 0868. “Everything here is a thing,” the Registrar submitted, “including, I put it to the Tribunal, this argument.”
Defence. The Keeper replied that everything being a thing is precisely why the word is kept flatly and without ceremony, and that accessioning the word would require dusting it, which counts as enthusiasm.
Holding. Ruled against I. Words are not objects, even when they are. Thing stays in Room 8 · Floor 2. The Registrar’s argument was admired and returned unfiled.
Conflict iii
IV v. V: The Snoring During Programme B Upheld in part
Claimant: the Usher of the Second Row, Dept IV · Respondent: the Warden of the Bench · Heard May.
Claim. The Usher complained that visitors asleep in the Listening Room snore through the Moonlight Sonata, that snoring is neither silence nor music, and that the Warden counts snorers as seated without relocating them.
Defence. The Warden replied that sleep is a successful visit, that the sleeper is never woken, and that the snoring of Programme B audiences has a steady tempo the department has come to rely on.
Holding. Upheld in part. Snorers shall continue to be counted, but shall henceforth be seated in the rear row, where the snoring joins the rain outside Programme B and is entered as accompaniment.
Conflict iv
X v. VI: The Plausibility of Pigeons Ruled against
Claimant: the Chronicler of Wonders, Dept X · Respondent: the Teller of Tall Tales · Heard June.
Claim. Department X demanded the transfer of Tale 02, the Pigeon Election of 2019, to Remarkable History on the grounds that fourteen candidates and full turnout is “ Sussex parish-council plausible” and that the denial stamp might be hasty.
Defence. The Teller replied that pigeons cannot write, hold office, or allocate crumbs, produced the empty ballot bowler, and invited the Tribunal to take evidence from the returning officer, who is a pigeon and does not exist.
Holding. Ruled against X. Plausibility is not occurrence. The tale stays untrue. The Chronicler was reminded that verification is compulsory and was seen checking the bowler on the way out.
Conflict v
VII v. V: Who Owns the Queue Shared custody
Claimants: the Observer of the Obvious, Dept VII, and the Warden of the Bench, Dept V · Heard July.
Claim. Department VII submitted that the queue is Rule 01 of the Code, unwritten and nationwide, while Department V counter-claimed Room 5C, The Queue, Thursdays at 11.00, with its own card and ordinance. Both produced queues in support.
Defence. The Tribunal observed two orderly lines forming outside the hearing room, one to complain and one to observe the complaining, and found the evidence indistinguishable.
Holding. Shared custody. The queue may be stood in by both departments. Sighing remains forbidden under both regimes and is enforced by neither, which the Tribunal found to be working.
Conflict vi
II v. VIII: The Return of Very Ruled against
Claimant: the Reader Aloud, Dept II · Respondent: the Keeper of Small Words · Heard August.
Claim. Department II petitioned for the return of very, arguing that ubiquity is a kind of remarkability, that the word had been voted on fourteen to two, and that Room 8 · Floor 2 dusts it twice, which is favouritism.
Defence. The Keeper replied that Room 8 · Floor 2 dusts very twice so as not to single it out, that the vote was a rejection and not a loan, and that the word is happy, or would be if happiness were permitted.
Holding. Ruled against II. Rejection is final. Very stays dull. The double dusting was ruled to be kindness, which is not enthusiasm, by a margin of one.
Conflict vii
XI v. X: The Envy of Excitement Dismissed
Claimant: the Keeper of Quiet Years, Dept XI · Respondent: the Chronicler of Wonders · Heard September.
Claim. Department XI complained that true wonders draw all the visitors while twelve verified non-events sit undated in Room 11 · Floor 1, that the Endurance gets gasps while decimal day gets nods, and that this is favouritism toward things happening.
Defence. Department X replied that nothing stops a visitor nodding slowly at wonders, that several have tried, and that envy is itself a form of excitement and therefore outside the complainant’s remit.
Holding. Dismissed. Envy is excitement; the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over excitement in Room 11 · Floor 1. The Keeper was awarded costs in biscuits, plain, and nodded at, slowly, by all present.
Conflict viii
IX v. III: The Double Greeting Settled
Claimant: the Listener to Distant Tongues, Dept IX · Respondent: the Secretary of Hellos · Heard October.
Claim. Department IX alleged that the eight rare greetings of Room 9 (Floor 1) duplicate the Secretary’s eight ordinary hellos, that visitors are greeted twice at the door, and that one visitor answered in Basque and was understood by no one twice.
Defence. The Secretary replied, in twelve tongues, that a greeting cannot be used up, and added a thirteenth greeting consisting of a nod, which the Tribunal accepted as evidence.
Holding. Settled. Greetings may be said twice. Visitors answering in Basque will be nodded at once, in either tongue. The nod was minuted and the meeting closed five minutes early, which has never happened before.
Conflict ix
XI v. VI: The Suspicious Biscuits Ruled against
Claimant: the Keeper of Quiet Years · Respondent: the Teller of Tall Tales · Heard November.
Claim. Department XI alleged that Footnote 12, the Institute’s unanimous founding minute with plain biscuits, is suspiciously perfect and demanded its transfer to Tall Tales as “too tidy to be true.”
Defence. The Teller declined the transfer, stating that the tale of a perfect meeting with plain biscuits is insufficiently funny for Room 6 · Floor 2, and returned the footnote with a note reading “too dull even for us,” which all parties agreed to treat as a compliment.
Holding. Ruled against XI. Dullness, once verified, cannot be unhappened by admiration. The biscuits were plain; the record stands. Both Keepers shared the costs.
Conflict x
VIII v. Institute: The Gibberishing of Thing Noted and gibberished
Claimant: the Keeper of Small Words · Respondent: the Porter · Heard December.
Claim. Department VIII complained that the website’s Gibberish tongue renders “thing” as “florp,” which the Keeper called showing off, and demanded the toggle be limited to remarkable words, which can take it.
Defence. The Porter replied that the gibberish is reversible, that “florp” returns to “thing” at one click, and demonstrated this twice, to diminishing applause.
Holding. Noted and gibberished. Reversibility is a complete defence. The complaint was translated, filed, and translated back, emerging unharmed. The Keeper asked that this holding not be admired.