From - Wed Apr 19 14:24:33 2000 Return-Path: Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au ([131.170.42.16]) by fb04.eng00.mindspring.net (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id sfr806.cp1.37kbi5a for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 08:01:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA03668 for agora-official-list; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 11:55:55 GMT Received: from fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (fw-in.serc.rmit.edu.au [131.170.42.1]) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA03665 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 11:55:53 GMT Received: (from mail@localhost) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id WAA73750 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 22:14:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from msuacad.morehead-st.edu(147.133.1.1) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma073748; Wed, 19 Apr 00 22:13:48 +1000 Received: (from mpslon01@localhost) by msuacad.morehead-st.edu (8.7.1/8.7.1) id HAA07519 for agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 07:57:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Slone Message-Id: <200004191157.HAA07519@msuacad.morehead-st.edu> Subject: OFF: CFJ 1208 Judged TRUE To: agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (agora-official) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 7:57:06 EDT X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 212.4] Sender: owner-agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Precedence: bulk Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 X-UIDL: sfr806.cp1.37kbi5a ============================== CFJ 1208 ============================== The Herald's Report was last ratified after 01Feb2000[.] ======================================================================== Called by: Elysion Judge: Blob Judgement: TRUE Judge selection: Eligible: Blob, Murphy Not eligible: Caller: Elysion Barred: - Had eir turn: Chuck, Crito, Elysion, Palnatoke, Sherlock, Steve, Taral, Wes, else...if, harvel, lee, t Already served: - Defaulted: Harlequin By request: Michael, harvel On Hold: Novalis, Palnatoke, Peekee Zombie: Anthony, Harlequin, Schneidster ======================================================================== History: Called by Elysion 14 Apr 2000 18:55:00 -0400 Assigned to Blob: 16 Apr 2000 09:56:22 -0400 Judged TRUE by Blob: 19 Apr 2000 17:17:11 +1000 Judgement published: As of this message ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: If Ratification is impossible, then my attempt on 14Feb00 failed. If Ratification is still possible, then my attempt succeeded. I have attached Steve's argument below. ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: Subject: RE: Re(2): DIS: RE: dance Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 13:56:27 +1000 From: Steve Gardner Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au To: "'agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au'" > -----Original Message----- > From: lee@schawk.com [mailto:lee@schawk.com] > Sent: Thursday, 13 April 2000 13:38 PM > To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au > Subject: Re(2): DIS: RE: dance > > Indeed and i have been forced to retain those errors until now. They > weighed heavy on my conscience. Don't rush to correct them just yet. I think there are legal issues here to be resolved. Kelly's argument is that the provision in R1550 that "Any Official Document (as specified in other Rules) may be ratified by the operation of an adopted Proposal (but no other sort of instrument)" takes precedence over the provision in R1791 that "Any Officer who holds an Office in Normal Fashion can Ratify an Official Report Without Objection". Allow me to play devil's advocate and suggest a counter-argument. R1550 forbids only the Ratification of Documents by other sorts of *instrument*. An instrument is an entity with Power > 0. So, clealy, a Rule cannot Ratify a Document. But does R1791 describe Ratification by a Rule? I think it would be more accurate to say that it describes Ratification by an Officer. True, the Officer acts according to the provisions of the Rule, but the Rule itself actually Ratifies nothing. It only sets out the procedures for doing so. The actual Ratification is performed by the Officer. In short, and as Kelly has so often pointed out, the Rule is not an agent - only the Officer is. Perhaps a CFJ to resolve this is indicated. -- Steve ======================================================================== Judge Blob's Arguments: As Wes has pointed out, both in the dicta of CFJ 1207 and in discussion in a-d, the problem with Ratification by Officer does not lie in any conflict between Rules 1550 and 1791, but rather between Rules 1791 and 1552. Steve is correct in pointing out that Officers are not instruments, and so are not regulated by R1550. The difficulty lies in the requirement in R1791 that: i) The Report to be Ratified is one that is legally permissible to Ratify. What does "legally permissible to Ratify" mean? Well, the only other rule which places conditions on what documents can be ratified is Rule 1552, which says: In order for an Official Document to be valid for the purpose of a Ratification, it must satisfy all the following criteria at the time the Proposal which would Ratify it is Proposed: The criteria themselves are not important at this stage. The paragraph quoted presents us with a difficulty. It was clearly written with the assumption that Ratification would be done by Proposal only. How should it be interpreted when there is no "Proposal which would Ratify"? The answer is far from straightforward. It could be argued that without such a proposal the document is never valid. It could perhaps be equally well argued that without such a proposal the criteria are trivially true. Both arguments are really stretching the meaning of the sentence in question. The simple truth is that the rule text makes an assumption which is plainly false. Trying to derive a meaningful interpretation of such a sentence is nonsensical. There is, I believe, a precedent for considering any part of a rule that is self-contradictory in a given situation as null and void. I believe it is in keeping with game custom and the best interests of the game to extend that precedent to this case. I rule that, in this situation, Rule 1552 is meaningless as it is based on untrue assumptions, and so it has no force. Without Rule 1552, there would appear to be no other restrictions on what documents are legally permissible to ratify, and so R1791 (i) is trivially true, under the doctrine of "permissibility of the unprohibited" as espoused by Rule 101. As the other criteria in R1791 were indeed satisfied for the report in question, I see no reason to rule that the the report was not properly Ratified. I therefor submit a judgement of TRUE. ======================================================================== Judge Blob's Evidence: ======================================================================== Clerk of the Courts harvel -- Michael Slone In the meantime, we'll just keep pointing it out just to annoy people. ;-) -- Wes, in agora-discussion