From owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Mon Oct 14 06:29:39 1996 Received: from greta.teleport.com (greta.teleport.com [192.108.254.20]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA30229 for ; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 06:29:38 -0500 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by greta.teleport.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA24506; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 04:11:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by greta.teleport.com (bulk_mailer v1.3); Mon, 14 Oct 1996 04:04:06 -0700 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by greta.teleport.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) id EAA18603 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 04:03:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk (exim@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.32.11]) by greta.teleport.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA17502 for ; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 04:00:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from albatross.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.0.96] (exim) by heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 0.52 #2) id E0vCkhB-000641-00; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 11:56:29 +0100 Received: from mn200 by albatross.cl.cam.ac.uk with local (Exim 0.55 #1) id E0vCkhA-0006B7-00; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 11:56:28 +0100 From: Michael Norrish To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: (CotC) final decision on CFJ 878 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 11:56:28 +0100 Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 7127 Lines: 182 Status: RO The original judgement of CFJ 878 has been reversed, and the decision on this statement is now TRUE. Scorekeepor take note: Michael, Steve and elJefe each receive the judicial salary of 3 Mils for their work in this Appeal. ====================================================================== CFJ 878 "Rule 1322 should be interpreted such that the term "Mutation Index" is a synonym for "Mutability Index"." ====================================================================== Judge: Andre Justices: Michael (CotC), Steve (J), and elJefe (S) Judgement: TRUE Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Coren, elJefe, favor, KoJen, Michael, Morendil, Murphy, Oerjan, Steve, Swann, Vanyel, Xanadu Not eligible: Caller: Zefram Barred: - On hold: - ====================================================================== History: Called by Zefram, Sun, 22 Sep 1996 04:53:14 +0100 (BST) Assigned to Andre, Fri, 27 Sep 1996 09:47:39 +0100 Judged FALSE by Andre, Wed, 2 Oct 1996 09:53:56 +0200 (MET DST) Published, Fri, 4 Oct 1996 10:49:04 +0100 Appeal called for by Morendil, Fri, 4 Oct 1996 12:11:32 +0100 Appeal called for by Oerjan, Fri, 4 Oct 1996 17:42:13 +0100 (MET) Appeal called for by Swann, Fri, 4 Oct 1996 19:23:48 -0400 Justices assigned, Sun, 6 Oct 1996 13:02:55 +0100 Appelate decision from Steve, Mon, 7 Oct 1996 15:38:19 +1000 (EST) Appelate decision from elJefe, Tue, 8 Oct 1996 23:54:07 +0000 Appelate decision from Michael, Sun, 13 Oct 1996 13:02:55 +0100 Final decision published, as of this message ====================================================================== Justice elJefe: I judge TRUE, overturning Judge Andre's judgement. 1.) There is no sensible way to interpret the Rules without taking these quite similar terms to have the same meaning. 2.) There is precedent in an earlier CFJ (can't quite recall which, and I no longer have my extensive collection of CFJs) that assigned meaning to words which were not defined in the Rules, but which were obvious linguistic derivations of terms which were so defined. I request that the Rulekeepor annotate Rule 1322 to this effect. This is not an Injunction, as nowadays Boards of Appeal (it seems) cannot issue injunctions. Regards, -- elJefe, Justice of the Board of Appeals of Agora Nomic ====================================================================== Justice Steve: In the matter of the Appeal of CFJ 878, I overturn Andre's Judgement and return a Judgement of TRUE. While I agree with Judge Andre that R1322 does not indicate that the two phrases are synonymous, I disagree with him about what it would take for two terms to be interpreted synonymously. Judge Andre's list is at least incomplete. (It may also be incorrect in that his third criterion is debatable, but that need not concern us here.) It is my judgement that the existence of extensive game custom which interprets two terms synonymously is also sufficient for the synonymity of the terms, other things being equal. In the particular case at hand, game custom certainly has it that the two terms do not differ in meaning. This should not surprise, for it is hard to make sense of R1322 without interpreting 'Mutation Index' and 'Mutability Index' synonyously, to the point where it is tempting to say that the appearance of 'Mutation Index' in the Rule is little more than a typographical error with no effect on meaning. ====================================================================== Justice Michael: As the other Justices have pointed out, there is no sensible way to interpret the two terms used in 1322 without concluding that their use is as synonyms. Support for this is also present in R105/0, where both terms are effectively equated. Therefore I overturn Judge Andre's decision, and call for the Judgement to be reversed. ====================================================================== Original Judge's Arguments: At no place in Rule 1322 it gives any indication that these two are synonymous. Not to make these arguments too short I'll issue the subject of when these two were synonymous. 1. If 'Mutation' and 'Mutability' had been synonyms, then 'Mutability Index' and 'Mutation Index' had been synonymous UNLESS some Rule said or implied they were not. 2. If a Rule explicitly or implicitly says they are the same, then of course they are synonymous 3. If the Rules implied that at all times (as long as the Rules hadn't changed) the indices had the same value for all Entities for which any of them has a value, then, in my opinion, they would be synonymous too. However, the value of Mutation Indices is not regulated by the Rules, and the best explanation now is, that Rule 1011 now says that a Rule HAS NO Mutation Index. Through a strange quirk of language this still keeps Rule 1322 sensible: We just have to accept that 'if any' means 'if the Rule has any Mutation Index'. ====================================================================== Evidence: Rule 1011/3 (Semimutable, MI=2) Game Entities May Not Be Arbitrarily Changed A "Nomic Property" is any property of any entity which that entity possesses solely by the virtue of the Rules defining that property. No Nomic Property shall be changed except in accordance with procedures specified by the Rules. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1021/4 (Mutable, MI=1) Mutability Indices Let there be, associated with each Rule, an Index called that Rule's Mutability Index. The Mutability Index of a Rule is a part of that Rule, and cannot be changed except by the application of a Rule Change of a type that the Rules state can change a Rule's Mutability Index. The Mutability Index of a Rule can never be changed such that it is less than 1 or greater than 4; any Rule Change which would do so does not have legal effect. A Rule whose Mutability Index is 1 is known as a "Mutable" Rule. All other Rules are known as "Semimutable" Rules. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1322/2 (Semimutable, MI=3) Effectiveness of Rule Changes Every Rule Change shall have associated with it an Index, called its Power, which determines its ability to take effect. The Power of a non-Proposed Rule Change shall be the Mutability Index of the Rule in which the Rule Change is contained. The Power of a Proposed Rule Change shall be the Adoption Index of the Proposal in which the Rule Change is contained. No Rule Change may take effect unless its Power is not less than the current Mutation Index of the Rule it seeks to change, if any, and the Mutation Index that the Rule would possess after the change, if any. ====================================================================== (Caller's) Arguments: The relevant Rules are 1021 and 1322. ======================================================================