---------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-agora-officia-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Thu Sep 4 07:37 EDT 1997 Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (majordom-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au [144.110.168.141]) by cs.brown.edu (8.8.5/8.7.1) with ESMTP id HAA12328 for dp-@cs.brown.edu; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 07:37:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom-@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA08578 for agora-official-list; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 21:04:07 +1000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA08572 for agora-officia-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 21:03:48 +1000 Received: by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.7.1/1.45) id NAA14560; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:05:26 +0200 (MET DST) From: engel-@win.tue.nl (Andre Engels) Message-Id: 199709041105.naa1456-@wsinfm15.win.tue.nl Subject: OFF: Final Judgement CFJ 837 To: agora-officia-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:05:25 +0200 (MET DST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agora-officia-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Precedence: bulk Reply-To: agora-discussio-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 28001 Status: N ===================================================================== CFJ 937 "No Player is currently required to report a change in Blots resulting from the commission of an Infraction." ====================================================================== Judge: Steve Justices: Andre, replacement for Michael (C), elJefe (J), General Chaos (S) Orgnl Jdgmnt: FALSE Judgement: FALSE (UPHELD) Eligible: Andre, Antimatter, Blob, Calabresi, Chuck, Crito, Elde, elJefe, General Chaos, Harlequin, Kolja A., Michael, Murphy, Steve, Vlad, Zefram Not eligible: Caller: Morendil Barred: - Disqualified: Vanyel On hold: Oerjan, Swann ====================================================================== History: Called by Morendil, Fri, 15 Aug 1997 20:47:28 +0100 Assigned to Steve, Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:16:07 +0100 Judged FALSE, Mon, 25 Aug 1997 15:30:06 +1000 (EST) Published, Tue, 26 Aug 1997 14:56:10 +0100 Appealed by Morendil, Tue, 26 Aug 1997 22:54:13 +0100 Appealed by Blob, Tue, 26 Aug 1997 22:54:13 +0100 Appealed by Elde, Tue, 26 Aug 1997 22:54:13 +0100 Appeals process begun, Thu, 28 Aug 1997 12:32:30 +0100 Speaker General Chaos judges UPHOLD, Sat, 30 Aug 1997 16:39:46 -0500 Justiciar elJefe judges UPHOLD, Wed, 3 Sep 1997 09:11:04 +0000 CotC Andre judges UPHOLD, Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:53:45 +0200 (MET DST) Published, as of this message ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Reaons and arguments: Morendil's argument is in two parts: first he argues that the Herald is not required to keep track of changes in Blots resulting from the commission of Infractions; then he argues that no other Player is required to keep track of such changes in Blots. Let us take the second - and by far the trickier - of these arguments first, and consider a specific example, that of the Infraction of Failure to Report, defined in R1686. Morendil argues that the Registrar is not required to report changes in Blots resulting from the commission of this Infraction. There is a sense, not discussed by Morendil, in which this is trivially true: no Rule actually requires the Registrar to report the commission of the Infraction at all! Strictly speaking, the Registrar has discretionary power not to report the commission of this Infraction even if e is aware that the Infraction has been committed. E is merely authorized to do so. We should be wary, however, of drawing general conclusions from a specific case such as this, for the Rules are not consistently formulated in this respect. So, while Tardiness (R1023) and Dereliction of Duty (R1644) are treated like Failure to Report in that a Player or group of Players are authorized but not required to report the commission of the Infraction when it occurs, it could be argued that in the case of Delayed COE Response (R1431), the Player who posted the original Claim of Error *is* required to report the incursion of a Blot penalty (the Rule says that the penalty is "to be reported", which plausibly can be read as imposing a requirement to report), and similar remarks apply to the Infraction of Excess Proposing (R1065), and to other Infractions defined in the Rules. Morendil's statement is, however, very general, claiming that "No Player is currently required to report a change in Blots resulting from the commission of an Infraction." The strategy we need then is either to concentrate on Infractions like Delayed COE Response, or just to assume in the case of Infractions like Failure to Report that the Registrar does in fact report the commission of the Infraction, and see what follows. Well, what does follow? Regarding Delayed COE Response, we have this statement from R1431: A Player who fails to post a Response within the alloted time commits the Infraction of Delayed COE Response, carrying a penalty of 1 Blot, to be reported by the Player who posted the Claim. Rule 1435 states: A Payment Order for 1 Indulgence, the payee of which is the Bank, is called a Blot. When a Rule states that a Player is to gain some number of Blots, a Payment Order shall be executed with that Player as the payor, the Bank as the payee, and for a number of Indulgences equal to the number of Blots that Player is to receive. This order is to be executed by whomever is required to report the change in Blots. while Rule 1504 states: Penalties for Infractions are applied immediately upon their legal report, and the Player making the report of the Infraction shall execute whatever Payment Order(s) are required to apply the penalty specified for that Infraction. Question: what happens if I legally report the commission of the Infraction of Delayed COE Response by posting to the PF: "Jill has committed the Infraction of Delayed COE Response, and gains 1 Blot."? In particular, does this message constitute the execution of a Payment Order for 1 Indulgence from Jill to the Bank? Given the identification of Blots with Payment Orders for Indulgences in R1435, I think the answer is 'yes'. It is crucial to note that the question here is *not* whether the simple reporting of the commission of the Infraction (without mentioning the Blot penalty) constitutes the execution of a PO for Indulgences. On that question, I agree with Morendil that these are not identical. But that observation is of no use to us here, because here we are concerned with changes in Blots. If I post the PF merely that "Jill has committed the Infraction of Delayed COE Response.", then I have not yet done all that R1431 requires me to do, since I am also required to report that Jill has earned a 1 Blot penalty. This is important because Morendil's argument relies at this point on the claim that, in general, all that a Player who is required to report the commission of an Infraction is required to do is report the commission of the Infraction, and no more. But in at least one case - Delayed COE Response - we find a counterexample to that claim. Merely reporting the Infraction is not enough; I have to report the Blot penalty also. In fact, even in a case like Failure to Report, where the relevant Rule (1686) makes no specific mention of a Blot penalty, the reference to a penalty "the same as...for a Class D crime" is enough to ensure, via R1504, that if the Registrar does report the commission of the Infraction, then e is required to execute a PO for Indulgences, and hence report a change in Blots. So, after extensive argumentation, we can see that the second part of Morendil's argument fails. [It's worth commenting at this point on an ambiguity in R1504: it's not clear whether the report of the Infraction and the report of the gain in Blots have to be made in the same message, or whether the report of gain in Blots can follow the report of the Infraction by up to seven days. The first sentence of R1504 states that "Penalties for Infractions are applied immediately upon their legal report". But the legal report of what: the penalties or the infractions? If infractions is meant, R1504 is somewhat in tension with itself, since it immediately goes on to imply (along with other Rules, eg R1599) that the application of the penalty can be later than the report of the Infraction. So I read R1504 as saying that penalties for Infractions are applied at the time the penalty is reported, which can be later than the time the Infraction is reported.] Turning now to the first part of Morendil's argument, we can see much more straightforwardly that it too fails. Morendil argues that the Herald is not required to report changes in Blots. The responsibilities of Recordkeepors with respect to their Currencies are set out in Rules 1578 and 1596: 1578: The Recordkeepor of a Currency is required to maintain a record of the amounts of that Currency held by the various entities which possess units of that Currency. 1596: Each Recordkeepor shall maintain a record of all Payment Orders executed which specify the Currency of which e is the Recordkeepor; this record shall also indicate, for each Order, whether that Order has been satisfied, is disputed, or has been vacated. Regarding the relationship between Indulgences and Blots, the Rules are reasonably clear. "A Payment Order for 1 Indulgence," says R1435, "the payee of which is the Bank, is called a Blot." This seems pretty straightforward. Blots are outstanding Payment Orders for Indulgences, including (not excluding, pace Morendil) disputed Payment Orders. Vacated Payment Orders don't count as outstanding Payment Orders, which seems to me to be the purpose of the clarificatory language (which is what I take it to be) in the second paragraph of R1435. A 'change in Blots', then, is simply a change in the number of non-vacated outstanding Payment Orders for Indulgences which have been assessed against a Player. Now we come to Morendil's first point: he argues that no Rule specifically requires the Herald to keep track of changes in the number of non-vacated outstanding Payment Orders for Indulgences which have been assessed against a Player. (Or rather, this is the argument he offers after one has corrected the mistake he makes about whether disputed Payment Orders for Indulgences count as Blots.) This claim is, strictly speaking, correct. No Rules specifically makes such a requirement. But that is because no Rule needs specifically to make such a requirement. Such a requirement is already implicit in the more general requirement set out in R1596 that the Herald maintain records of all Payment Orders for Indulgences and their statuses, be they satisfied, disputed or vacated. In fulfilling this requirement, the Herald will, ipso facto, be keeping track of any change in the number of non-vacated Payment Orders for Indulgences, and hence, in the number of Blots. This is enough to show that the Statement is FALSE, for the argument given above shows that Herald is required to keep track of, and hence ultimately to Report (via R1377), changes in Blots resulting from the commission of Infractions. ====================================================================== Judgement of General Chaos, Speaker: UPHOLD I can see no compelling reason to disturb Judge Steve's ruling in this matter. In addition to Steve's arguments, with which I have no substantial disagreement, I add the following: Morendil notes in his argument that a change of Blots is the result of the execution of a Payment Order in Indulgences. If this is, in fact, the case, then clearly someone is required to report a change of Blots: the executor of each particular Payment Order in Indulgences. Rule 1596/2 clearly requires Payment Orders to be posted to the Public Forum, which in my mind effectively amounts to "reporting" the event. It is my opinion that the original Judgement of FALSE be UPHELD. Entered this 30th day of August, Justice General Chaos, Speaker ====================================================================== Decision of elJefe, Justiciar: UPHOLD Judge Steve reasoned that both the Herald and the player reporting the infraction are required by the Rules to report the change in Blots (though in different ways). Either of these will make the statement FALSE, and inb this appeal I will concentrate on the second of these. If someone executes a Payment Order for indulgences away from a player to the Bank, this is a report of a new Blot (or Blots), and is implicitly a report of a change in Blots. Thus the statement is FALSE if the Rules require any player to execute any such POs. Rule 1504 requires the player reporting an Infraction to execute a PO for Indulgences to apply the penalty for the Infraction. No Rule of higher precedence appears to absolve em of this duty. Therefore the Statement is FALSE. In post-judgement discussion, Laurent made much of a supposed conflict between Rules 1435 and 1504. But even if these Rules imposed the requirement on different Players, that does not constitute a conflict. If Rule 1504 requires me to execute a PO and rule 1435 requires Laurent to execute a PO then I suppose we would both need to execute the PO's. In any case at least one player would be required to execute the PO and thus report a change in Blots. Even if (for the sake of argument) there was a conflict, 1504's requirement could only be removed by a higher-precedence rule requiring a different player to perform the duty. In this case there would still be a player required to execute the PO, with the same conclusion. However, in eir argument Laurent wants to have it both ways. First, he claims that 1435 and 1504 require different players to execute the PO. Then he claims that 1504 does not actually require a Player to execute the PO. These cannot both be true. My higher point is that the mere potential for conflict does not invalidate the lower-precedence Rule. If 1504 specifies a player unequivocally, and 1435 tries to specify a player but fails, then there is not an actual conflict. elJefe, Justiciar of Agora Nomic ====================================================================== Judgement of Andre, CotC: UPHOLD What is a 'change in Blots'? According to Rule 1435 a Blot is 'a Payment Order for one Indulgence, the payee of which is the Bank.' A change in Blots is thus a change in the number or nature of such Payment Orders (by the way this implies that '5 Blots' is '5 Payment Orders of 1 Indulgence', not 'a Payment Order of 5 Indulgences'). Which changes in Blots are resulting from the commission of an Infraction? I will not be too pesky here, and read this as it was meant, something like 'a change in Blots, coming into existence as (part of) the Penalty for an Infraction'. As can be seen from the Rules, these can only be the creation of Blots with the Player who committed the Infraction as Payor. So, is anybody required to report the creation of such a Payment Order? I think the answer is yes. Rule 1504 states: Penalties for Infractions are applied immediately upon their legal report, and the Player making the report of the Infraction shall execute whatever Payment Order(s) are required to apply the penalty specified for that Infraction. If a CFJ later finds that the Infraction did not occur, the Judge of that CFJ is required to issue an Injunction requiring the Clerk of the Courts to vacate the Payment Order(s) originally executed to apply the penalty. So the Player who reports the Infraction is required to execute the Payment Order. Rule 1596 states: A Payment Order is executed when a Player with the authority to do so (as defined by the Rules) posts the Order to the Public Forum. Thus, this Player has to post the Order to the Public Forum. This act reports the existence, and implicitly the creation, of the Payment Order, and thus of the Blot. Therefore I UPHOLD the original Judgement of FALSE Andre Engels, temporary Clerk of the Courts. ====================================================================== (Caller's) Arguments: A Recordkeepor is a Player who is required to maintain a record of past and present Payment Orders naming a particular Currency. To fulfill these obligations, it is necessary, and sufficient, that a Player should be able, if called upon to do so under Rule 1064 (FOIA), to provide upon request a list of all Payment Orders naming that particular Currency that have been executed in the last four Weeks, and their status. No additional obligation is imposed upon a Recordkeepor with respect to Payment Orders, or to any given set of Payment Orders. In particular, a Currency Recordkeepor is not required to keep track of "changes in the total amount of Payment Orders executed, but not disputed or vacated", which is the long-winded expansion of the legal shorthand "a change in Blots". A Recordkeepor is a fortiori not required to *report* such changes, which makes Rule 1435's designation of "whomever is required to report the change in Blots" vacuuous. To sum up : if I were the Recordkeepor for Indulgences, no Rule could currently _require_ me to post a message to the Public Forum whenever a Player's Blots changed. Are some other Players required to post reports of such changes ? This responsibility could conceivably fall to Players required to post Reports of Infractions. The reasoning would be : "A report of an Infraction committed by a particular Player leads to a Blot penalty assessed against that Player, and thus constitutes a report of a change in Blots". This inference, however, misses one crucial step. A "change in Blots" is the result of a Payment Order in Indulgences being executed. But the report of an Infraction is not, in and of itself, a Payment Order, and thus the requirement to report an Infraction cannot simultaneously constitute a requirement to report a change in Blots. A solution to this problem would be to enact Implicit Payment Orders, the mirror image of Implicit Transfer Orders, which - employed with the same caution which was reserved to ITOs - would restore reports of Crimes and Infractions to their full effectiveness. ===================================================================== Evidence: Rule 1435/3 (Power=1) (added by Justiciar) Definition of Indulgences, Blots and Immaculate Indulgences are a Currency. The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is the Herald. The Mintor of Indulgences is the Bank. A Payment Order for 1 Indulgence, the payee of which is the Bank, is called a Blot. When a Rule states that a Player is to gain some number of Blots, a Payment Order shall be executed with that Player as the payor, the Bank as the payee, and for a number of Indulgences equal to the number of Blots that Player is to receive. This order is to be executed by whomever is required to report the change in Blots. A Player may be said to have a number of Blots equal to the sum of the amounts of all Payment Orders for Indulgences naming em as the payor and the Bank as payee, including orders which are disputed (but not those which have been vacated or satisfied). A Player with no such Payment Orders is Immaculate. It is a Win-Preventing condition for a Player to have one or more Blots. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1504/5 (Power=1) (added by Justiciar) Application and Timing of Crimes and Infractions When a CFJ determines that a Player has committed a Crime, the Judge is required to issue an Injunction requiring the Clerk of the Courts to execute Payment Orders required to apply the penalty specified for that Crime. If an appeal finds the Crime did not occur, the penalty shall not be applied. If the penalty has already been applied, then the penalty shall be reversed to the extent possible immediately upon resolution of the appeal. Penalties for Infractions are applied immediately upon their legal report, and the Player making the report of the Infraction shall execute whatever Payment Order(s) are required to apply the penalty specified for that Infraction. If a CFJ later finds that the Infraction did not occur, the Judge of that CFJ is required to issue an Injunction requiring the Clerk of the Courts to vacate the Payment Order(s) originally executed to apply the penalty. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1596/1 (Power=1) (added by CotC) Currency Transfers, generally The Rules have the power to require the transfer of Currencies; no other Entity also has this power unless explicitly granted it by the Rules, and then only to the extent granted by the Rules. No Entity other than the Rules themselves has the power to require any transfer which would result in the Treasury being transferred from containing a negative quantity of the Currency transferred. Whenever an Entity requires a transfer of Currencies to take place, the transfer takes place as required, provided that the Entity which is requiring the transfer is permitted by the Rules to require that transfer, and provided that the transfer is otherwise permitted by the Rules. Such a transfer takes place at the time specified by the Entity which requires the transfer, or, if no time is specified, at the time when the Entity first begins to require the transfer. This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would permit or require a transfer prohibited by this Rule. When another Rule would prohibit some transfer permitted by this Rule, this Rule defers to that Rule with respect to that transfer. ====================================================================== Text, provided by Morendil upon his Appeal: Following are some remarks on the parts of Steve's argument that I believe are contentious. === > There is a sense, not discussed by Morendil, in which this is trivially true: > no Rule actually requires the Registrar to report the commission of the > Infraction at all! I did not discuss this because I felt it to be the more obvious part of the argument. There is indeed no requirement to report Infractions in general, and thus there is no requirement to report Blot changes resulting specifically from the commission of Infractions inherent in the general Rules for Infractions. To prove the Statement FALSE, it is therefore sufficient to prove, either that there is a Player who is required to report all changes in Blots in general; or that there is a requirement on some Player to report all or some changes in Blots resulting from the commission of an Infraction, and to that extent I agree with Steve's analysis. > It could be argued that in the case of Delayed COE Response (R1431), the > Player who posted the original Claim of Error *is* required to report the > incursion of a Blot penalty (the Rule says that the penalty is "to be > reported", which plausibly can be read as imposing a requirement to report), I humbly disagree and find this a contrived, rather than plausible, reading of R1431 or other Rules using the construction 'to be reported by X'. We need look no further for an explanation of this phrase than Rule 1503, which states Any Rule that defines an Infraction must also specify a Player or Players who are authorized to detect and report the commission of that Infraction; otherwise, the Infraction carries no penalty. This clearly underlines the use of 'to be reported by X' in the context of a Rule dealing with Infractions as a 'phrase of art', i.e. the usual and approved manner of specifying which 'Player or Players [are] authorized to detect and report the commission of that Infraction'. Much (if not most !) of Steve's rebuttal of the 'second part' of my own argument rests upon this dubious reading, however, so I can only hope that the Justices considering this Appeal will issue a decision on this issue. > Question: what happens if I legally report the commission of the Infraction of > Delayed COE Response by posting to the PF: "Jill has committed the Infraction > of Delayed COE Response, and gains 1 Blot."? In particular, does this message > constitute the execution of a Payment Order for 1 Indulgence from Jill to the > Bank? Given the identification of Blots with Payment Orders for Indulgences in > R1435, I think the answer is 'yes'. I'm afraid that the answer is not as simple. In particular, answering 'yes' to this question on the grounds that Blots are POs _assumes_ that Steve, in this hypothetical example of reporting Jill's infraction, is authorized to execute Payment Orders in Indulgences corresponding to Blot penalties. However, the crux of my own argument is that if the Statement in CFJ 937 is TRUE, then Steve is in such a case *not* authorized to execute such POs, and therefore the answer is 'no'. I'm afraid the reasoning that follows from assuming an answer of 'yes' is therefore inacceptable. > In fact, even in a case like Failure to Report, where the relevant Rule (1686) > makes no specific mention of a Blot penalty, the reference to a penalty "the > same as...for a Class D crime" is enough to ensure, via R1504, that if the > Registrar does report the commission of the Infraction, then e is required to > execute a PO for Indulgences, and hence report a change in Blots. I must also take issue with this last inference. Steve states that e agrees that the Report of an Infraction is not identical with a report of a change in Blots, and that is trivially correct. I argue the subtler point that "being required to execute a PO in indulgences" is not identical to "being required to report a change in Blots", even though executing a PO in Indulgences _causes_ a change in Blots, and coincidentally (since executing a PO is done by posting to the PF) announces the same fact. If it were possible, say, to execute POs by sending them directly to the Player and RecordKeepor involved, then no requirement to execute a PO would conceivably be equivalent to a requirement to report same. > Blots are outstanding Payment Orders for Indulgences, including (not > excluding, pace Morendil) disputed Payment Orders. I must apologize for the mistake and any confusion resulting from it. Steve's critique of the first part of part of my argument is potentially more fruitful, in that if it can conclusively be shown that the requirement to publish "The Currency Records for Indulgences" (R1377) includes, explicitly or explicitly, a requirement to report "changes in Blots" in general, then my argument that the Herald is not required to report Blot changes will indeed be disproved. Of the recordkeeping provisions of Rule 1596, Steve states: > In fulfilling this requirement, the Herald will, ipso facto, be keeping > track of any change in the number of non-vacated Payment Orders for > Indulgences, and hence, in the number of Blots. This is enough to show that > the Statement is FALSE, for the argument given above shows that Herald is > required to keep track of, and hence ultimately to Report (via R1377), changes > in Blots resulting from the commission of Infractions. Earlier in his argument Steve warns of the perils of extrapolating from the particular to the general. It is true that the Assessor and Promotor are respectively required to _report_ changes in VTs and P-Notes, by Rules 1696 and 1701. The Herald is in addition required by 1377 to report changes in Honor. But these are specific exceptions to the general rule that Currency Reports are required only to contain current information. The Herald is only required to report Currency information for Indulgences, which 1596 only requires to includes current information. That the Herald is required to _keep_track_ of changes thereto may be a consequence of the requirements of 1596 (though I dispute even that). But I contend that being required to _know_ of some information, specifically when, why, and by how much each Player's Blots changed, does not carry a requirement to_publish_ that information, even under FOIA (which, ironically, did at some time include a provision requiring the publication of any changes occurring between request and publication, but no longer does - does anyone know since when ?) To put it another way, if I were Herald and in between two of my Reports, 3 Indulgence POs were executed naming Blob, for a total of 10 Blots, I would be able to fulfill my duties under 1596 without having to disclose the particulars of any Blot change - thus my contention that I would not be "required to report Blot changes".