From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Mon Mar 27 05:17:40 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id FAA15556; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 05:17:37 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id DAA20443 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 03:23:10 -0800 Received: from mizar.astro.indiana.edu (mizar.astro.indiana.edu [129.79.160.43]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA20433 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 03:23:05 -0800 Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0rtCsv-0001UgC; Mon, 27 Mar 95 06:23 EST Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga) id <2hui@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Mon, 27 Mar 95 06:12:13 EST5 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 95 06:12:13 EST5 Message-Id: <9503271112.2hui@poverty.bloomington.in.us> From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin) To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: Final Judgement of CFJ 750 Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== FINAL JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 750 (Speaker ElJefe violated Rule 452 by...) ====================================================================== Final Judgement: UNKNOWN Judgement of the Clerk of the Courts: UNKNOWN Judgement of the Speaker: FALSE Judgement of the Justiciar: TRUE Clerk of the Courts: Kelly Speaker: elJefe Delegate: TAL Justiciar: Steve Judgement: TRUE Judge: Chuck Eligible to Judge: Andre, Blob, Dave Bowen, Coren, Chuck, Elde, Einstein, Jeffrey, JonRock, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Pascal, Steve, Swann, TAL, Vanyel, Vlad Caller: Oerjan Barred: elJefe Scorekeepor: Chuck receives 3 Points for timely Judgement elJefe receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement Steve receives 3 Points for timely Judgement Kelly receives 3 Points for timely Judgement Chuck must forfeit 3 Points for being overturned ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called Tue, 7 Mar 1995 19:19:02 +0100 (MET) by Oerjan Assigned Tue, 7 Mar 1995 19:10 UTC to Chuck Judged TRUE Sat, 11 Mar 95 19:40:52 CST by Chuck --> Chuck receives 3 Points Appealed Sun, 12 Mar 1995 09:39:41 -0800 (PST) by Coren Appealed Mon, 13 Mar 95 14:26:43 WET by TAL Appealed Wed, 22 Mar 1995 01:46:26 -0500 by Swann Assigned Wed, 22 Mar 1995 09:15 UTC to Kelly as CotC Assigned Wed, 22 Mar 1995 09:15 UTC to Steve as Justiciar Assigned Thu, 23 Mar 1995 01:50 UTC to TAL as pro-Speaker Judged FALSE Thu, 23 Mar 95 18:59:35 WET by TAL as pro-Speaker --> elJefe receives 5 Points Judged TRUE Mon, 27 Mar 1995 10:16:32 +1000 (EST) by Steve as Justiciar --> Steve receives 3 Points Judged UNKNOWN Mon, 27 Mar 95 06:08:32 EST5 by Kelly as CotC --> Kelly receives 3 Points --> Chuck loses 3 Points ====================================================================== Statement: "Speaker ElJefe violated Rule 452 by sending individual Vote Reminders to the Voters who had not yet voted on Proposals then up for Vote." I Bar ElJefe from judging this. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: Clearly this act utilised the Speaker's knowledge of the standing of the Votes. It's intent was to encourage players to vote, thereby influencing the amount of Votes cast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- References: Rule 452/1 (Mutable, MI=1) No Electioneering by the Speaker The Speaker may not use eis knowledge of the current status of a vote on a Proposal in an attempt to influence the result of the Vote on that Proposal. ====================================================================== Judgment: TRUE I Judge this statement to be TRUE. If Rule 452 did not include the words "in an attempt," I would judge this statement TRUE without reservation, since it is clear that 1) elJefe sent separate voting reminders out to Players who had not yet voted, and 2) it is possible that these may have influenced the vote. But because Rule 452 *does* include the words "in an attempt," another question is raised, namely, was elJefe *attempting* to influence the vote? Or would any such influence, if it occurred, have been entirely unintentional? It is impossible for me to know with certainty elJefe's intent; but it seems very unlikely that such a reminder could have been sent for any other purpose than encouraging Players who had not yet voted to vote. Thus, I still Judge TRUE, but with somewhat more reluctance than I would have otherwise. The Rules are not clear on how certain one must be of a TRUE or FALSE Judgement to make it. While I am not 100ertain that this statement is TRUE, I am fairly certain. There is certainly a case to be made for UNDECIDED (or, if 1487 passes, UNKNOWN) on the basis that no one but elJefe can know elJefe's intent with certainty, and thus it cannot be known if elJefe attempted to influence the Vote. I encourage elJefe to appeal this decision. In fact, I hereby call for appeal on the Judgement of CFJ 750. [[Note of the CotC: Chuck's attempt to Call for Appeal is not binding, as it was not posted to the Public Forum, at least not by himself.]] ====================================================================== Judgement of the pro-Speaker: FALSE Arguments: Rule 452 states: "The Speaker may not use eis knowledge of the current status of a vote on a Proposal in an attempt to influence the result of the Vote on that Proposal." In order to establish the violation of Rule 452 the following two questions must be answered with yes. 1) Did ElJefe attempt to influence the Voting Result by sending out individual voting reminders to Players which had not yet voted? The result of a vote depends on two factors: - the ratio of FOR and AGAINST votes - the number of Players that voted The only way that Speaker ElJefe can try to change a positive F-A into a negative one (or vice versa) is by an approach of a limited number of Players, namely those Players that are likely to sway that result. Judge TAL: when you sent out these infamous individual vote reminders, did you send this message to all Players who hadn't yet voted or only to a subset of those? Suspect ElJefe: With regards to the individual voting reminders referred to in CFJ 750, I sent one to each player who had not voted. Hence ElJefe did clearly not attempt to influence the F/A result. On the other hand, it is also clear that sending a Voting Reminder to each Player who had not voted is an attempt to change the number of Players that voted. Hence the answer on Question 1) is yes. 2) Did ElJefe use his knowledge of the status of the vote when he did so? The fact that ElJefe's messages influenced the number of Voters, only influences the result if Quorum on the Proposals had not yet been reached. But that is not enough. We also ought to establish that ElJefe *knew* that Quorum had not yet been reached. Judge TAL: when you sent these messages, were there any Proposals for which Quorum had not yet been reached? Suspect ElJefe: This was not in my mind at the time. However, I recall that the Quorum was 10. I don't remember exactly how many were sent, but I have a feeling that it was more than 10, which would mean that Quorum was not reached on the Proposals then up for vote. Therefore, although ElJefe deduces today, that Quorum had not been reached, he did not realise that when he send out his messages. Hence, ElJefe did not use his knowledge of the Vote Status when he attempted to influence the Vote. Consequently, I judge NOT GUILTY, oops, FALSE. References: 1) Rule 452 2) Message from Speaker ElJefe. === Rule 452/1 (Mutable, MI=1) No Electioneering by the Speaker The Speaker may not use eis knowledge of the current status of a vote on a Proposal in an attempt to influence the result of the Vote on that Proposal. === Date: Thu, 23 Mar 95 11:33:42 EST From: jlc@triple-i.com (Jeff Caruso) Message-Id: <9503231633.AA09889@Camex.COM> To: KUNNE@cernvm.cern.ch Subject: Re: CFJ 750 > Salut ElJefe, Greetings. Thanks for the courtesy of taking my evidence. > 1) when you sent out these infamous individual vote reminders, > did you send this message to all Players who hadn't yet voted > or only to a subset of those? With regards to the individual voting reminders referred to in CFJ 750, I sent one to each player who had not voted. > 2) when you sent these messages, were there any Proposals for > which Quorum had not yet been reached? This was not in my mind at the time. However, I recall that the Quorum was 10. I don't remember exactly how many were sent, but I have a feeling that it was more than 10, which would mean that Quorum was not reached on the Proposals then up for vote. Regards, - elJefe ****************************************************************** Dr. Jeffrey L. Caruso Information International ====================================================================== Judgement of the Justiciar: TRUE I uphold Chuck's original Judgement and Judge that the Statement is TRUE. Since the Statement implicitly ascribes certain motives to Eljefe in acting as he did, I sought and obtained clarification from Eljefe as to what his motives were. A copy of our communication is included below: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hi Jeff, Before I make my Judgement in the Appeal of CFJ 750, I would like confirmation from you personally that I have not misunderstood the facts surrounding the case. Therefore I would like to put to you that understanding and allow you to respond. Please feel free to correct any errors or omissions, or add any comments. Please also be aware that this communication may appear as evidence in my Judgement. The Statement alleges that you used your knowledge of the progress of voting on a Proposal to influence the result on that Proposal, by sending voting reminders specifically to Players whom you knew had not yet voted. As far as I am aware, you have not denied that this is substantially the case. Is this in fact an accurate description of what happened? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Greetings, Steve. I appreciate your courtesy in taking my evidence. > The Statement alleges that you used your knowledge of the progress > of voting on a Proposal to influence the result on that Proposal, > by sending voting reminders specifically to Players whom you knew > had not yet voted. As far as I am aware, you have not denied that > this is substantially the case. Is this in fact an accurate > description of what happened? The facts in the above statement are correct, the only thing subject to judgement or interpretation is the construction to be placed upon my motives, as the Rule makes it illegal to use such knowledge in an "attempt" to influence the result. As I stated originally, I did use my knowledge of the vote, in order to identify those who had not yet voted. My intent was (at the time) to encourage voter turnout, so that whatever result was returned would be most likely the will of the Agorans. I sent the individual reminders to all and only those Voters who had not yet voted at the time. I can see that Chuck decided that the only reason for doing this was an "attempt to influence the result of the voting", but he didn't give any reasoning or evidence for this conclusion, and that wasn't the way I saw it at the time. It is possible, however, that I was wrong. Certainly it would have been more prudent to send individual reminders to everyone. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Eljefe admits that he did use his knowledge of the vote in order to identify those who had not yet voted; he then sent reminders to those Players in attempt to get them to vote. Since if this attempt were successful then the result of the vote would be altered, and since Eljefe knew this to be the case, I am satisfied that in acting as he did, Eljefe did use his knowledge of the vote in an attempt to influence the result of the vote, and hence that his action was a violation of Rule 452 within the strict meaning of that Rule. However, I do want to emphasize that I don't think that Eljefe is guilty of anything more than a minor misdemeanour, and that it was clearly committed in good faith and with good intentions. Steve Gardner | "Justice? You get justice in the next Dept. of Philosophy, Monash Uni. | world, in this world you get the law." gardner@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au | -- William Gaddis -- ====================================================================== Judgement of the Clerk of the Courts: UNKNOWN I Judge this CFJ to be UNKNOWN. I am taking the liberty of referencing the evidence TAL obtained (which appears in his Judgement, already submitted to the Court) by questioning elJefe directly about the circumstances surrounding the events in question. Unlike TAL, however, I feel that the evidence available to me, as a Judge, is insufficient to provide compelling proof for a finding of either TRUE or FALSE, and I further believe that there is no way that sufficient evidence can be obtained that would compel a Judgement of either TRUE or FALSE. Clearly the Statement is not such that it engenders a paradox, so a finding of UNDECIDABLE is not permitted, by Rule 591/2. My only remaining legal Judgement is therefore UNKNOWN, and I enter my finding as such. Kelly Martin Clerk of the Courts ====================================================================== -- kelly martin I have been told that when a large group of people believe in a fantasy, it is called a culture. When a small group believes, it is called a cult. When two people believe in a fantasy, it is called love; and when one person believes, it is called psychosis. From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Sun Mar 12 18:34:46 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id SAA27607; Sun, 12 Mar 1995 18:34:44 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id QAA05702 for nomic-official-outgoing; Sun, 12 Mar 1995 16:40:15 -0800 Received: from mizar.astro.indiana.edu (mizar.astro.indiana.edu [129.79.160.43]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA05661 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 1995 16:40:05 -0800 Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0rnyB0-0001RfC; Sun, 12 Mar 95 19:40 EST Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga) id <2bd2@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Sun, 12 Mar 95 19:35:16 EST5 Date: Sun, 12 Mar 95 19:35:16 EST5 Message-Id: <9503130035.2bd2@poverty.bloomington.in.us> From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin) To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: Judgement of CFJ 751 (Rule 1438 can only be interpretated...) Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 751 (Rule 1438 can only be interpretated...) ====================================================================== Date: 13 Mar 1995 00:35 UTC Judgement: FALSE Judge: Steve Eligible to Judge: Andre, Blob, Coren, Dave, Elde, Einstein, elJefe, Jeffrey, JonRock, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Oerjan, Pascal, Steve, Vlad Caller: TAL Barred: Swann, Vanyel, Chuck Scorekeepor: Steve receives 3 Points for timely Judgement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called Thu, 09 Mar 95 18:06:52 WET by TAL Assigned Thu, 09 Mar 1995 22:15 UTC to Steve Judged TRUE Mon, 13 Mar 1995 11:08:08 +1100 (EST) by Steve --> Steve receives 3 Points ====================================================================== Statement: "Rule 1438 can only be interpretated in such a way, that no Rule can lead to a Punitive Point Loss" Players barred: Swann, Vanyel, Chuck ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: Note: if Judged TRUE the Judge has the right to issue an Injonction, to annotate Rule 1438. Rule 1438 defines a Punitive Point Loss (PPL) in a negative way: "Punitive Point Losses are those losses *not* due to:, etc." One of the excluded losses is " vii) Rules that also adjust the number of Blots a Player has." Now suppose that a Rule X imposes a point loss on a Player and that such a loss is not already covered by one of the other exceptions. By 1438 that Player will then "...receive Blots equal to half the number of Points lost, rounded down." Hence Rule X will in that case lead to an adjustment in the number of Points a Player has. But in that case Rule X falls under the exclusion clause vii) quoted above. Consequently, that loss can not be a PPL. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- References: Rule 1438/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Blots Due to a Punititve Point Loss A Punitive Point Loss is a point loss that results in gaining Blots. Whenever a Rule calls for a Punitive Point loss, the Player losing Points will receive Blots equal to half the number of Points lost, rounded down. Punitive Point Losses are those losses *not* due to: i) Voluntary transfers of Points to any other Player or any other Nomic Entity. ii) Voluntary destruction of a Player's own Points. iii) The outcome of a Vote on a Proposal iv) Adjustments made as part of a correction in the Game State. v) The reset of scores due to the end of a Game. vi) A score change that a Rule specifically designates as Non-Punitive. vii) Rules that also adjust the number of Blots a Player has. Further, a Point Loss ceases to be Punitive when the Rule mandating the Loss is amended to explicitly state either of the following: i) The Rule does not impose a Blot penalty. ii) The Rule does impose a Blot penalty, the amount of the Blot penalty, and the Player responsible for reporting those Blots to the Tabulator. Players Legally Responsible for reporting Punitive Point losses to the Scorekeepor also have the Legal Responsibility to report Blots due to those Punitive Point losses to the Tabulator. This Rule shall remain in effect until there are no longer any Punitive Point Losses defined in the Ruleset, at which point this Rule will repeal itself. History: Created by Proposal 1459, Mar. 1 1995 ====================================================================== Judgment: FALSE TAL makes a simple mistake in his argument, by neglecting to note the force of the word "also" in clause (vii) in Rule 1438. This clause states that "Punitive Point Losses are those losses *not* due to ... (vii) Rules which *also* adjust the number of Blots a Player has." TAL's argument is that Rule 1438 itself falls under this description. But this is not so; while Rule 1438 does adjust the Blots of Players, it does not itself authorize any Punitive Point Losses. Hence it it is not a Rule of the type specified in clause (vii). ====================================================================== -- kelly martin Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea--massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it. --Gene Spafford, 1992 From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Mon Mar 20 21:34:07 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id VAA04882; Mon, 20 Mar 1995 21:33:52 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id TAA00639 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 1995 19:37:48 -0800 Received: from mizar.astro.indiana.edu (mizar.astro.indiana.edu [129.79.160.43]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA00578 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 1995 19:37:29 -0800 Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0rqul3-0001U1C; Mon, 20 Mar 95 22:37 EST Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga) id <2ert@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Mon, 20 Mar 95 22:34:47 EST5 Date: Mon, 20 Mar 95 22:34:47 EST5 Message-Id: <9503210334.2ert@poverty.bloomington.in.us> From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin) To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: Final Judgement of CFJ 752 Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== FINAL JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 752 (Rule 911 should be interpreted such that CFJ 750...) ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 15:40 UTC Final Judgement: FALSE Judgement of the Clerk of the Courts: UNDECIDED (*) Judgement of the Speaker: FALSE Judgement of the Justiciar: FALSE Clerk of the Courts: Kelly Delegate: TAL Speaker: elJefe Justiciar: Steve Judgement: FALSE Judge: Swann Eligible to Judge: Andre, Blob, Coren, Dave Bowen, Elde, Einstein, elJefe, Jeffrey, JonRock, KoJen, Michael, Oerjan, Pascal, Steve, Swann, TAL, Vanyel, Vlad Caller: Chuck Barred: Kelly Scorekeepor: Swann receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement Steve receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement elJefe receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement Kelly receives 3 Points for timely Judgement (*) Note: Judgement of UNDECIDED is permissible because this CFJ was made before Rule 591 was amended by Proposal 1487. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called Mon, 13 Mar 95 10:43:01 CST by Chuck Assigned Mon, 13 Mar 1995 19:40 UTC to Swann Judged FALSE Tue, 14 Mar 1995 08:00:42 -0500 by Swann --> Swann receives 5 Points Appealed Tue, 14 Mar 1995 11:42:11 -0800 (PST) by Coren Appealed Tue, 14 Mar 1995 14:35:41 -0600 by Chuck Appealed Thu, 16 Mar 95 12:36:58 MET by Andre Assigned Thu, 16 Mar 1995 14:25 UTC to Steve as Justiciar Assigned Thu, 16 Mar 1995 14:25 UTC to elJefe as Speaker Assigned Thu, 16 Mar 1995 15:40 UTC to TAL as pro-CotC Judged FALSE Fri, 17 Mar 1995 18:54:45 +1100 (EST) by Steve as Justiciar --> Steve receives 5 Points Judged FALSE Fri, 17 Mar 95 10:13:38 EST by elJefe as Speaker --> elJefe receives 5 Points Judged UNDECIDED Mon, 20 Mar 95 21:26:54 WET by TAL as pro-CotC --> Kelly receives 3 Points ====================================================================== Statement: "Rule 911 should be interpreted such that CFJ 750 has been successfully appealed." Relevant Rules: 911, 478, 591, 408 Injunction: I do not request an Injunction with this CFJ. However, Rule 789 still requires me to provide a list of Relevant Rules; and if the Judge Judges TRUE, e is permitted to issue an Injunction in accordance with Rule 789. I bar Kelly from Judging this statement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: Rule 911 states that a Judgement is appealed upon the insistence of three Players to the Public Forum. Coren and TAL have posted their calls for appeal directly to nomic-business, which constitutes the Public Forum. (I can find no explicit evidence that Distributor Coren has defined nomic-business as the Public Forum; however, the info message with nomic-business states that all Players are required to be subscribed to it, which I take as definition as the Public Forum. The same applies to nomic-offical.) It is the third Player's "insistence"--mine--which is primarily under dispute. I included it in my Reasons and Arguments on my Judgement of CFJ 750 which was not posted directly by me to the Public Forum; it was sent to COTC Kelly. Kelly then posted it to (and was required to post it to) the Public Forum. (She is required to send it to all Players, by Rules 408 and 591; by Rule 478, this constitutes the Public Forum.) Does this indirect posting to the Public Forum, by me through Kelly, constitute "insistence to the Public Forum?" I believe it does. There is nothing in the Rules to suggest the path something takes to the defined lists affects whether or not it is posted to the Public Forum. Some mail messages may go through several nodes before reaching teleport.com, but no one would suggest that they are not posted to the Public Forum because they did not go to teleport.com first. Similarly, my insistence was sent to the Public Forum, only through the COTC. I also believe Game Custom supports me on this. There was a time when the Distributor list was handled manually. Yet no one suggested that something was not sent to the Public Forum because it was sent to the Distributor first. (And note the Distributor Rule only provides an exception when something is to be sent to all Players, not when something is to be sent to the Public Forum.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- References: 1. Rule 911 2. Rule 478 3. Rule 591 4. Rule 408 5. Rule 796 6. COTC Kelly's post of the Judgement of CFJ 750, including my Reasons and Arguments and my call for Appeal 7. Coren's call for Appeal 8. TAL's call for Appeal 9. info message for nomic-official 10. info message for nomic-business ======1. Rule 911 Rule 911/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Appealing Judgement A Judgement may be Appealed upon the insistence of any three Players to the Public Forum. If a Judgement is successfully Appealed, the Justices shall each Judge the Statement as if they were Judges. They may confer with each other on the case before delivering Judgement if they desire. If a Justice should fail to return Judgement in the allotted time, e shall be fined three Points for each day by which e missed the deadline. This fine shall be levied by the Scorekeepor. If a majority of the Justices' Judgements agree, the Statement shall be considered to have been Judged accordingly. Otherwise, it shall be considered to have been ruled UNDECIDED. The Justices' reasoning and arguments shall be recorded with the original CFJ. Once a Judgement has been made, the Justices may make Injunctions just as may Judges, provided a majority of them agree. The decision of the Justices is final; no further Appeal of that Statement may be made. If the decision of the original Judge of the Statement is changed by the Justices, the Judge shall forfeit the compensation e received for judging. (*Was: 690*) History: .. Amended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994 =====2. Rule 478 Rule 478/1 (Mutable, MI=1) The Public Forum The Public Forum is any medium defined by the Distributor as such. If a Rule requires that a message is send to the Public Forum, then a message send to all Active Players fulfills this requirement as well" History: .. Amended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995 =====3. Rule 591 Rule 591/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Legal Judgements A legal Judgement is either TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDED. The Judgement must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations of deciding Rules, past Judgements, and game custom. A Judgement delivered without reasons and/or arguments is completely invalid. Such reasons and arguments form no part of the Judgement itself. However, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the reasons and arguments along with the Judgement. Any evidence which is used to justify the Judgement, other than appeals to Game Custom or to common sense, must be presented by the Judge. If the Judge introduces evidence beyond that submitted in the Call for Judgement, e must include this evidence in eir Judgement. All such added evidence must be distributed as part of the reasons and arguments by the Clerk of the Courts. History: .. Amended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994 =====4. Rule 408 Rule 408/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Accepting Judge-ship After the Clerk of the Courts has distributed the Statement to be judged and the identity of the Judge, the Judge has one week in which to deliver a legal Judgement. If the Judge fails to deliver a Judgement within this time, e is penalized 10 points and the CotC randomly selects another Judge from among eligible Players. A Judgement is delivered by submitting that Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts, who must then distribute that Judgement to all Players as soon as possible. History: .. Amended(1) by Proposal 1383, Jan. 17 1995 =====5. Rule 796 Rule 796/0 (Mutable, MI=1) The Distributor There shall be an Office known as the Distributor. Whenever the Rules state that anything must be sent to all Players, they may instead be sent to the Distributor with some indication that they should be forwarded to all Players. The Distributor shall then send this message to all Players as soon as possible and in the order recieved. The first Distributor shall be Wes. This Rule shall take precedence over all Rules which require a Player to send something to all Players. (*Was: 510*) =====6. COTC Kelly's post of the Judgement of CFJ 750 Received: from desiree.teleport.com by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id UAA07812; 8.6.9W/42; Sat, 11 Mar 1995 20:31:49 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id SAA19575 for nomic-official-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 1995 18:31:24 -0800 Received: from mizar.astro.indiana.edu (mizar.astro.indiana.edu [129.79.160.43]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA19526 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 1995 18:31:11 -0800 Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0rndQz-0001RVC; Sat, 11 Mar 95 21:31 EST Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga) id <2b0i@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Sat, 11 Mar 95 21:30:20 EST5 Date: Sat, 11 Mar 95 21:30:20 EST5 Message-Id: <9503120230.2b0i@poverty.bloomington.in.us> From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin) To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: Judgement of CFJ 750 (Speaker ElJefe violated Rule 452...) Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 750 (Speaker ElJefe violated Rule 452 by...) ====================================================================== Date: 12 Mar 1995 02:30 UTC Judgement: TRUE Judge: Chuck Eligible to Judge: Andre, Blob, Dave Bowen, Coren, Chuck, Elde, Einstein, Jeffrey, JonRock, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Pascal, Steve, Swann, TAL, Vanyel, Vlad Caller: Oerjan Barred: elJefe Scorekeepor: Chuck receives 3 Points for timely Judgement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called Tue, 7 Mar 1995 19:19:02 +0100 (MET) by Oerjan Assigned Tue, 7 Mar 1995 19:10 UTC to Chuck Judged TRUE Sat, 11 Mar 95 19:40:52 CST by Chuck --> Chuck receives 3 Points ====================================================================== Statement: "Speaker ElJefe violated Rule 452 by sending individual Vote Reminders to the Voters who had not yet voted on Proposals then up for Vote." I Bar ElJefe from judging this. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: Clearly this act utilised the Speaker's knowledge of the standing of the Votes. It's intent was to encourage players to vote, thereby influencing the amount of Votes cast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- References: Rule 452/1 (Mutable, MI=1) No Electioneering by the Speaker The Speaker may not use eis knowledge of the current status of a vote on a Proposal in an attempt to influence the result of the Vote on that Proposal. ====================================================================== Judgment: TRUE I Judge this statement to be TRUE. If Rule 452 did not include the words "in an attempt," I would judge this statement TRUE without reservation, since it is clear that 1) elJefe sent separate voting reminders out to Players who had not yet voted, and 2) it is possible that these may have influenced the vote. But because Rule 452 *does* include the words "in an attempt," another question is raised, namely, was elJefe *attempting* to influence the vote? Or would any such influence, if it occurred, have been entirely unintentional? It is impossible for me to know with certainty elJefe's intent; but it seems very unlikely that such a reminder could have been sent for any other purpose than encouraging Players who had not yet voted to vote. Thus, I still Judge TRUE, but with somewhat more reluctance than I would have otherwise. The Rules are not clear on how certain one must be of a TRUE or FALSE Judgement to make it. While I am not 100ertain that this statement is TRUE, I am fairly certain. There is certainly a case to be made for UNDECIDED (or, if 1487 passes, UNKNOWN) on the basis that no one but elJefe can know elJefe's intent with certainty, and thus it cannot be known if elJefe attempted to influence the Vote. I encourage elJefe to appeal this decision. In fact, I hereby call for appeal on the Judgement of CFJ 750. [[Note of the CotC: Chuck's attempt to Call for Appeal is not binding, as it was not posted to the Public Forum, at least not by himself.]] ====================================================================== -- kelly martin Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea--massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it. --Gene Spafford, 1992 =====7. Coren's call for Appeal Received: from desiree.teleport.com by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id LAA16800; 8.6.9W/42; Sun, 12 Mar 1995 11:39:58 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id JAA06711 for nomic-business-outgoing; Sun, 12 Mar 1995 09:39:47 -0800 Received: from linda.teleport.com (coren@linda.teleport.com [192.108.254.12]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA06706 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 1995 09:39:44 -0800 Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 09:39:41 -0800 (PST) From: Gary Heavysege To: nomic-business@teleport.com, Kelly Martin Subject: BUS: Honourable COTC: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-nomic-business@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com This is getting interesting, and needs to be resolved... Please accept my Appeal of CFJ 750. I don't have real strong feelings one way or the other, but I'd like to see both whether elJefe actually is at fault, *and* whether Chuck, by sending his Appeal as part of a message he knew with full certainty would be posted to the Public Forum, actually did so. Coren ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Gary Heavysege -- Internet: coren@teleport.com, coren@suuper.suu.edu, gheavysege@delphi.com finger -l for PGP Public Key: 78 38 2B F8 EC CF 7E 55 A7 75 C3 9D 11 1D 00 AC ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ =====8. TAL's call for Appeal Received: from desiree.teleport.com by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id HAA56864; 8.6.9W/42; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 07:31:48 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id FAA26354 for nomic-business-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 05:31:36 -0800 Received: from CEARN.cern.ch (cearn.cern.ch [128.141.2.9]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id FAA26343 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 05:31:31 -0800 Message-Id: <199503131331.FAA26343@desiree.teleport.com> Received: from CERNVM.CERN.CH by CEARN.cern.ch (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4043; Mon, 13 Mar 95 14:29:56 SET Received: from CERNVM.cern.ch (NJE origin KUNNE@CERNVM) by CERNVM.CERN.CH (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8834; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 14:28:09 +0100 Date: Mon, 13 Mar 95 14:26:43 WET From: KUNNE@CERNVM.cern.ch Subject: BUS: Appeal of CFJ 750 To: nomic-business@teleport.com Sender: owner-nomic-business@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com In order to allow Chuck to CFJ on the legality of his own Appeal, I herewith Appeal CFJ 750. Let it be known that this doesn't mean I disagree with the Judgment. TAL =====9. info message for nomic-official >>>> info nomic-official [Last updated on: Fri Dec 2 1:21:32 1994] Welcome to Agora Nomic and the nomic-official mailing list !!! -------------------------------------------------------------- SUBSCRIPTION TO THIS LIST IS REQUIRED OF ALL PLAYERS! This list is for Agora Nomic official messages and reports, as required of the duly appointed Officers by the Agora Nomic Rules, **ONLY**. Please - all messages to this list must be clearly marked as being from a specific Officer. Please post questions or corrections regarding messages on this list, or any other official business related messages to "nomic-business@teleport.com" Please post ALL OTHER messages to "nomic-discussion@teleport.com". PLEASE - DO NOT ABUSE THIS LIST BY POSTING INELIGIBLE MESSAGES!!! This system is designed to allow people with limited time or resources to play Agora Nomic while receiving the absolute minimum number of messages necessary to know what is going on. Be courteous and check your message headers! -------------------------------------------------------------- Subscription to "nomic-business@teleport.com" and the Agora Nomic backup list, "nomic@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au" is also required of all Players. Send a message to "listserv@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au" with no Subject: and a body of "SUBSCRIBE NOMIC yourfirstname yourlastname" to subscribe to the backup list. To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to "Majordomo@ teleport.com" with no Subject: and a body of "unsubscribe nomic-official". Please send any other questions or comments to "coren@teleport.com". Thank you! Agora Nomic Distributor Coren =====10. info message for nomic-business >>>> info nomic-business [Last updated on: Fri Dec 2 1:21:33 1994] Welcome to Agora Nomic and the nomic-business mailing list !!! -------------------------------------------------------------- SUBSCRIPTION TO THIS LIST IS REQUIRED OF ALL PLAYERS! This list is for Agora Nomic business-related messages, *ONLY*. This includes official questions and/or corrections in reply to messages posted to "nomic-official" by officers, official messages from Officers which are not otherwise required by the Rules, and messages from Players which the Rules require be posted either to "the Public Forum", "all Players", or some other form of general communication. Included in this catagory are point and currency transfers between Players, On and Off Hold announcements, Office transfers, and all other messages of a "semi-official" or Rules- required nature that are not appropriate for posting in "nomic- official". THIS LIST AND "NOMIC-OFFICIAL" ARE DESIGNATED TO MEET ALL SUCH PURPOSES BY THE AGORA NOMIC DISTRIBUTOR, AND ARE THE *ONLY* MEDIUMS SO DESIGNATED. All messages to this list must be clearly marked as being from a specific Player; no completely anonymous messages are allowed. For the moment, messages containing only "proto-proposals", and clearly marked as such, should ALSO be directed to this list, barring any objections from Players who would rather see such directed to nomic-discussion. ALL OTHER messages which are unrelated to Agora Nomic, or which are purely of a discussionary nature, INCLUDING discussion of current Proposals and proto-proposals, and any questions regarding messages posted to "nomic-official" or "nomic-business" which are NOT of an official nature should be posted to "nomic-discussion@teleport.com". PLEASE - DO NOT ABUSE THIS LIST BY POSTING INELIGIBLE MESSAGES!!! This system is designed to allow people with limited time or resources to play Agora Nomic while receiving the absolute minimum number of messages necessary to know what is going on. Be courteous and check your message headers! Please post questions or corrections regarding messages on this list, or any other official business related messages to "nomic-business@teleport.com" Please post ALL OTHER messages to "nomic-discussion@teleport.com". -------------------------------------------------------------- Subscription to "nomic-official@teleport.com" and the Agora Nomic backup list, "nomic@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au" is also required of all Players. Send a message to "listserv@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au" with no Subject: and a body of "SUBSCRIBE NOMIC yourfirstname yourlastname" to subscribe to the backup list. To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to "Majordomo@ teleport.com" with no Subject: and a body of "unsubscribe nomic-business". Please send any other questions or comments to "coren@teleport.com". Thank you! Agora Nomic Distributor Coren ====================================================================== Judgment: FALSE Relevant Rules: 911, 478, 591, 408, 910, 991, 662, 789 Arguments: In order to determine the question at hand we must define exactly what Rule 911/1 requires before a CFJ is Appealed. The relevant sentence is: "A Judgement may be Appealed upon the insistence of any three Players to the Public Forum." For the moment I'll ignore the phrase "A Judgement may be Appealed." I'll get back to it at the end of my statement. First, it needs to be settled what the phrase "insistence of any three Players to the Public Forum" actually means. Now, it is true that the grammar of this sentence could be interpreted so that the phrase "to the Public Forum" is referring to "Appealed." This interpretation means that there are no explicit strictures, or even definition, of a Player's "insistence." I think, however, that Game Custom supports interpreting this phrase to refer to the "Player's insistence." Also, Game Custom also supports interpreting "Player's insistence" as a message explicitly calling for an Appeal. So it is this Judge's opinion that the phrase: "insistence of any three Players to the Public Forum" When filtered through the lens of Game Custom, means: "three messages in the Public Forum, from three different Players, calling for an Appeal." I quote from Chuck's Arguments: "[...] Coren and TAL have posted their calls for appeal directly to nomic-business, which constitutes the Public Forum. (I can find no explicit evidence that Distributor Coren has defined nomic- business as the Public Forum; however, the info message with nomic-business states that all Players are required to be subscribed to it, which I take as definition as the Public Forum. The same applies to nomic-offical.)" This is a valid appeal to Game Custom, which is that nomic-business and nomic-official are currently the Public Forum when no other definition exists. However, even if Distributor had no such Public Forum defined when this question occurred, Rule 478/1 states: "If a Rule requires that a message is send to the Public Forum, then a message send to all Active Players fulfills this requirement as well." Since nomic-business is required to be subscribed to by all Players, it is the Public Forum outside any statement by the Distributor, or at least as long as the Distributor does not specifically exclude it as such. [At this point the Judge would like to call attention to a tense error in 478/1, "send" should be "sent."] It is therefore clear that Coren and TAL, by posting directly to nomic- business, fulfilled the requirements (such as they are) of 911/1. The messages from Coren and TAL consist of two valid "insistences." What remains is Chuck's own "insistence." Again, I quote from Chuck's arguments: "[...] I included [my insistence] in my Reasons and Arguments on my Judgement of CFJ 750 which was not posted directly by me to the Public Forum; it was sent to COTC Kelly. Kelly then posted it to [...] the Public Forum. (She is required to send it to all Players, by Rules 408 and 591 ; by Rule 478, this constitutes the Public Forum.)" It is clear, even without recourse to Common Sense, that Chuck has a very valid point here. The re-formulated version of Rule 478, as quoted above, defines *any* message sent [send] to "all Active Players" as the "Public Forum." Chuck: "I included [my insistence] in my Reasons and Arguments on my Judgement of CFJ 750" Rule 408/1: "A Judgement is delivered by submitting that Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts, who must then distribute that Judgement to all Players as soon as possible." Rule 591/1: "Such reasons and arguments form no part of the Judgement itself. However, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the reasons and arguments along with the Judgement." It is obvious that, because the CotC is required by the rules to send a Judgement to "all Players," and that Judgement must also be accompanied by the "reasons and arguments," then any message included in the "reasons and arguments" is being sent to the "Public Forum" as defined by 478/1. Therefore Chuck has sent a valid "insistence," fulfilling the three insistence requirement of rule 911/1. Which brings us back to the question at hand: "Rule 911 should be interpreted such that CFJ 750 has been successfully appealed." There is a problem here, and that problem is the phrase "successfully appealed." Specifically, was it legal for Kelly, as the CotC, to refuse to accept Chuck's insistence, even if it *was* properly made to the Public Forum? I quote Kelly's message of Sun, 12 Mar 95 02:34:51 EST5: "i continue to hold that your privately-expressed insistence upon appeal is not binding upon me." If it is legal for Kelly to do this, then the Appeal would certainly not be "successful." If the question had been: "Rule 911 should be interpreted such that CFJ 750 has been appealed." I would have no problem, relying on Game Custom, in judging this CFJ as TRUE. However, Chuck's introduction of 911's language into the question forces me to consider what the phrase "successfully appealed" actually means. The rub is in the phase I alluded to earlier, "A Judgement may be Appealed upon..." It doesn't say a "A Judgement will be Appealed by..." or "A Judgement must be Appealed by..." or even, "A Judgement is Appealed in the following manner..." In fact, the phrasing of that first sentence, "A Judgement may be Appealed upon the insistence of any three Players to the Public Forum," even when filtered through Game Custom and Common Sense, does not-- I repeat, does *not*-- imply that three insistences are a necessary and sufficient condition for a CFJ to be Appealed. The word "may" says that the CFJ also "may *not*" be appealed. Three insistences to the Public Forum only allows this decision to be made. The fact that this decision has always been in the affirmative beforehand does not change the language of the Rule. Worse, the word "upon" implies that it is not the three insisting Players who are doing the Appealing! It is clear that, once three insistences are made, a further step-- beyond the three insistences-- must be taken for an CFJ to be successfully Appealed. Following 911/1 language to decipher what is happening leads me to the following conclusions: 1) Three insistences to the Public Forum allow, but does not require, a CFJ to be Appealed. 2) Some Entity that is not the three insisting Players has the power to Appeal the CFJ. 3) This Entity has the power to Appeal or not Appeal, as it chooses, since 911/1 does not specifically bind it to do so. So, who or what, is this Entity? 911/1 does not help much, since after this troublesome sentence it goes directly into what happens once a CFJ is "successfully Appealed." Neither is 910/1, which defines the duties of Justices and has little bearing on making Appeals. Which leaves us with Common Sense. Which, I believe, suggests that this Entity is, in fact, the Clerk of the Courts. It is the CotC who accepts CFJ's (Rule 991/0) and determines if a CFJ is accepted for Judgement (Rule 662/0.) It therefore follows, if a power exists to decide if an Appeal is "successful" or not, and whether the Appeal is made or not, it resides with the CotC. It is therefore the opinion of this Judge that CotC Kelly did in fact have the legal power to deny Chuck's insistence, *even if* such an insistence was made to the Public Forum. Therefore I have no choice but to rule FALSE on CFJ 752. Since CotC Kelly has refused to Appeal CFJ 750, and has the power to do so arbitrarily via Rule 911/1, CFJ 750 has *not* been successfully Appealed, even though, in this Judge's opinion, three Players have made insistences to the Public Forum as otherwise required by Rule 911/1. Injunction: Since I am ruling this CFJ FALSE, I cannot via Rule 789/1 issue an Injunction to annotate 911/1. This is truly unfortunate, in that this is a rather important interpretation of the CotC's power. I therefore make a non-binding request to the Rulekeepor to add an unofficial comment to Rule 911 stating that the CotC has the power to reject Appeals. ------------------------------------- Relevant evidence not included with CFJ 752: ---------------------------------------- Text of Kelly's message denying Chuck's insistence: [irrelevant header meterial deleted] >Date: Sun, 12 Mar 95 02:34:51 EST5 >From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin) >To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com >Cc: nomic-discussion@teleport.com >Subject: Re: OFF: Judgement of CFJ 750 (Speaker ElJefe violated Rule 452...) "Charles" == Charles E Carroll writes: Charles> Nothing in Rule 911 or 478 implies that it has to be posted Charles> *by me* to the Public Forum. The fact that it has been Charles> posted to the Public Forum is sufficient, and my call for Charles> appeal is valid. 911 states that "A Judgement may be Appealed upon the insistence of any three Players to the Public Forum." i do not see how a third party can convey the insistence of another player to the Public Forum. i believe this is disanalogous to the situation with point transfers; in that case the transfer is what needs to be posted. in this case, the player must express eir insistence to the public forum. i contend that another player cannot act as an intermediate vehicle of such expression. your insistence of appeal was made not to the public forum, but to me, personally. i continue to hold that your privately-expressed insistence upon appeal is not binding upon me. feel free to CFJ on the matter. as an aside, i think this phrasing in 911/1 is perfectly terrible. k. -- kelly martin Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea--massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it. --Gene Spafford, 1992 ---------------------------------------- Rule 910/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Appeals and the Justiciar Let there be three Players known as the Justices, and an Office known as the Justiciar. The Justiciar shall not receive a weekly salary. The Speaker and the Clerk of the Courts are ineligible to be Justiciar. The positions of Justice shall be held by the Speaker, the Clerk of the Courts, and the Justiciar; or by their representatives as detailed in this Rule. The Justices shall have the duty to Judge Statements that have been Appealed. They shall receive the same compensation as Judges for each Statement so Judged. The Speaker and Clerk may delegate their duties as Justices to other willing Players if they desire. They must do so if a Player would otherwise hold more than one position of Justice. Any Justice must so delegate eir duties for a particular case if e made the original CFJ, if e was the Judge of the original CFJ, or if e was Accused by that CFJ of breaking a Rule. If no Player is willing to receive the duties of Justice for a case, the Clerk of the Courts shall select one randomly. [In CFJ 728 Judge Vlad opined that Rules 910/0 and 897/0 jointly imply that a Player Barred from Judging a certain CFJ is also forbidden from serving as Justice on an Appeal of that CFJ.] History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1447, Feb. 21 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 991/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Invoking Judgement If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may invoke Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. Disagreement, for the purposes of this Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player. When Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Clerk of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players. No Player shall submit more than five CFJ's per week. (*Was: 407*) ---------------------------------------- Rule 662/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Allowed CFJ's A "Move" refers to any specific action taken by a Player or group of Players in the context of the game. Any invocation of Judgement must satisfy one or more of the following conditions: - clearly allege that a specific Move is illegal; - clearly allege that a specific Rule is illegal or lacking in legal force, in whole or in part; - clearly allege that a specific Rule ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege that the current published game state is incorrect, and in what respects. A CFJ which does not satisfy at least one of the above conditions shall be deemed invalid and shall not be accepted for Judgement by the Clerk of the Courts. However, this Rule shall defer to rules which explictly permit CFJs that do not necessarily meet the above conditions. ---------------------------------------- Rule 789/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Injunctions on Interpretations of Rules When a player makes a CFJ alleging that a Rule should be interpreted in a certain way, e shall also submit a list of Rules relevant to that CFJ, which must include the Rule in question. If the statement is Judged TRUE, the Judge may include with the Judgement an Injuction requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule in question with the Statement in the CFJ and the list of relevant Rules. The annotation shall remain only until one of the Rules in the list of relevant Rules is changed in any way; or until a CFJ determines that the injunction no longer applies, as described below. While it remains, it shall guide the application of that Rule. If a Player believes that the circumstances which led to the Judgement no longer prevail and the annotation is therefore no longer applicable, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is Judged TRUE, the annotation shall be stricken from the rule set. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1396, Jan. 29 1995 ---------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Judgement of the Justiciar: FALSE I uphold Swann's original Judgement that the Statement is FALSE. Swann's quite remarkable Judgement discovers in the language of Rule 911 a previously unsuspected power of the CotC to arbitrarily refuse to accept Appeals, even if these are made to the Public Forum. Perhaps this discovery outrages the sensibilities of those to whom it seems clear that Rule 911 was never intended to grant the CotC such a power. That is not my concern. It is my task to determine if Swann's Judgement was correct in law. In my view, Judge Swann was perfectly within his rights to read Rule 911 as closely as he did, and to deduce from the language contained therein his surprising conclusion. In the absence of an overriding reason to overturn his Judgement, I therefore uphold his Judgement that the Statement of CFJ 752 is FALSE. ====================================================================== Judgement of the Speaker: FALSE Swann's judgement of FALSE turns on the question of interpreting Rule 911, in particular the first sentence "A Judgement may be Appealed upon the insistence of any three Players to the Public Forum." After much discussion, he finds that Chuck's indirectly communicated insistence counts as "insistence to the Public Forum", but denies that the sentence actually mandates an Appeal. The wording is "may be Appealed upon", not "is Appealed upon" or "may be Appealed by". The first alternative phrasing would effect a legal event ("Appeal"), whereas the second alternative phrasing is a definition of how to effect the event; there really is no difference between them. Unfortunately and strangely, the actual language leaves the word "Appeal" adrift, with neither a mandate for when it occurs nor a definition of how to carry it out. Therefore I uphold the judgement of FALSE. ====================================================================== Judgment of the Delegate for the Clerk of the Courts: UNDECIDED Arguments: 1) Is Chuck's attempt to post an appeal to the Public Forum, with the CotC as intermediary, a valid posting to the Forum? I think the answer is yes. 911/1 requires that the Appeal message is send to the Public Forum. Rule 478/1 defines the Public Forum as: "The Public Forum is any medium defined by the Distributor as such." Obviously the CotC is not such a medium :-) However, the Rule continues: "If a Rule requires that a message is send to the Public Forum, then a message send to all Active Players fulfills this requirement as well." And this of course is exactly what Chuck did. The fact that the CotC was used as intermediary is irrelevant, because Chuck's appeal was inbedded in the Arguments to a Judgment and he know that the CotC was obliged to forward that message to all Active Players. Note that a few days earlier 478 had been amended. 478/0 put a time limit on the forwarding to all Players, which is no longer the case in 478/1. 2) Were there three Players insisting on the Appeal of CFJ 750? The answer is yes again. I established in 1) that Chuck did so, by indirect means. Coren and TAL on the other hand posted directly to nomic-discussion, which makes three Players in total. 3) Is three Players insisting on the Appeal of CFJ 750 a sufficient condition? Although Judge Swann made an argument to the contrary, I tend to think the answer here is `yes' too. However, we are close to the limits of my knowledge of English (and maybe outside :-) Swann's argument may be summarized as follows: 911 says: "A Judgement may be Appealed ...." The word "may" implies that the three insistences to the Public Forum only allows the decision of the Appeal to take place to be made. 911 uses `Appeal' in its verbal form. Well, `to appeal' means: 1: to take steps to have (a case) reheard in a higher court 2: to plead for help, corroboration, or decision 3: to arouse a sympathetic response Therefore the very act of `requesting a Judgment to be overturned' is equivalent to `Appealing'. And in Nomic that *may* be done by posting to the Public Forum. As shown in 1) and 2) three Players did so. Successfully, I might add: their messages made it to all Players. However, this dictionary definition of `appeal' combined with the 'upon' makes it for me impossible to parse the whole sentence, in a way it makes sense. I therefore will assume here that Swann is right. 4) Did CotC Kelly have the *legal* power to deny Chuck's insistence? According to Judge Swann, Common Sense [sic] dictates that the entity who takes the decision whether a Judgment is successfully appealed can only be the CotC. Swann arrives at this conclusion by pointing out the analogy with the CotC's power of decision in accepting CFJ's for Judgment (Rule 662). However, 911/1 claims: "If a Judgement is successfully Appealed, the Justices shall each Judge the Statement as if they were Judges." Without appealing to Common Sense I conclude that the CotC -who after all is a Justice- has the legal power to deny an insistence to appeal, because e shall Judge the Statement *only* if a Judgment is successfully Appealed. However, e may only do so, when this is legally justified and I established in 1) and 2) that this is not the case with respect to Chuck's appeal. Therefore, if *I* would have been Justice on CFJ 750 then I would have had no choice as to consider the Appeal. But, as Justice Steve points out bi-monthly, justice is for a large part interpretation and Justice Kelly apparently interprets Rule 478 differently, then I do. In fact, it might just be possible that Justice Kelly comes to one conclusion, while Justice Steve and Justice ElJefe arrive at another. At the time this CFJ was made we had not yet heard the opinion of the other two Justices on the matter! 5) Should Rule 911 be interpreted such that CFJ 750 has been successfully appealed? I summarize: - In my opinion, Chuck's appeal was legal, and so where Coren's and TAL's. - However, a Justice may refuse to take note of appeals if they are not legally made, in eir opinion. - At the time CFJ 752 was made we had not heard yet of the other two Justices. Whereas Rule 451 obliges me to base my evaluation on the `truth or falsity of the Statement at the time the CFJ was issued', and whereas two out of three Justices had not yet given their opinion on whether Chuck's indirect posting constituted a legal means of Appealing, I feel I have only the right to judge UNDECIDED. Note: I think 911 is not too bad. Apparently the three Justices may not only reJudge the CFJ if there is an Appeal, they may also "judge" whether there was an Appeal in the first place. That seems more logical to me then leaving it in the hands of one Officer only. References: Rule 451/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Determination of Judgement--Timing When a Judge is considering eir Judgement of a Statement contained in a CFJ, e shall make eir evaluation based on the truth or falsity of the Statement at the time the CFJ was issued. Rule 478/0 (Mutable, MI=1) The Public Forum The Public Forum is hereby defined as any medium by which one player sends or posts a message which, to the best of the sender's intent, knowledge, belief, and ability, is simultaneously sent to all active players and accurately dated to within 5 minutes. The terms "listserv" and "listserver" are synonymous with "Public Forum". Rule 478/1 (Mutable, MI=1) The Public Forum The Public Forum is any medium defined by the Distributor as such. If a Rule requires that a message is send to the Public Forum, then a message send to all Active Players fulfills this requirement as well" History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995 Rule 662/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Allowed CFJ's A "Move" refers to any specific action taken by a Player or group of Players in the context of the game. Any invocation of Judgement must satisfy one or more of the following conditions: - clearly allege that a specific Move is illegal; - clearly allege that a specific Rule is illegal or lacking in legal force, in whole or in part; - clearly allege that a specific Rule ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege that the current published game state is incorrect, and in what respects. A CFJ which does not satisfy at least one of the above conditions shall be deemed invalid and shall not be accepted for Judgement by the Clerk of the Courts. However, this Rule shall defer to rules which explictly permit CFJs that do not necessarily meet the above conditions. Rule 911/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Appealing Judgement A Judgement may be Appealed upon the insistence of any three Players to the Public Forum. If a Judgement is successfully Appealed, the Justices shall each Judge the Statement as if they were Judges. They may confer with each other on the case before delivering Judgement if they desire. If a Justice should fail to return Judgement in the allotted time, e shall be fined three Points for each day by which e missed the deadline. This fine shall be levied by the Scorekeepor. If a majority of the Justices' Judgements agree, the Statement shall be considered to have been Judged accordingly. Otherwise, it shall be considered to have been ruled UNDECIDED. The Justices' reasoning and arguments shall be recorded with the original CFJ. Once a Judgement has been made, the Justices may make Injunctions just as may Judges, provided a majority of them agree. The decision of the Justices is final; no further Appeal of that Statement may be made. If the decision of the original Judge of the Statement is changed by the Justices, the Judge shall forfeit the compensation e received for judging. (*Was: 690*) History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994 ====================================================================== -- kelly martin I have been told that when a large group of people believe in a fantasy, it is called a culture. When a small group believes, it is called a cult. When two people believe in a fantasy, it is called love; and when one person believes, it is called psychosis. >From mizar!brownvm.brown.edu!owner-belief-lBROWNVM.BITNET Mon, 20 Mar 95 22:34:26 EST5 Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga) id <2ers@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Mon, 20 Mar 95 22:34:26 EST5 Received: from listserv.brown.edu by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0rqr2V-0001RuC; Mon, 20 Mar 95 18:39 EST Received: from stanley.cis.Brown.EDU (stanley.cis.brown.edu [128.148.176.55]) by listserv.brown.edu (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id RAA13904; Mon, 20 Mar 1995 17:41:22 -0500 Message-Id: <199503202241.RAA13904@listserv.brown.edu> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 16:33:51 -0600 Reply-To: Personal Ideologies Discussion List Sender: Personal Ideologies Discussion List From: Ellen Ross To: Multiple recipients of list BELIEF-L Subject: Re[2]: Reasonableness It can be a dangerous thing -- if you're *too* reasonable, they make you List Manager. Oh, no. Anything but that! *Not* chopped liver. ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 753 (The Move of putting Proposal 1479 up for vote was illegal.) ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Judge: Oerjan Judge: Einstein (deregistered) Eligible to Judge: Andre, Blob, Coren, Dave Bowen, Chuck, Elde, elJefe, Jeffrey, JonRock, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Oerjan, Pascal, Steve, Swann, TAL, Vanyel Caller: Vlad Scorekeepor: Oerjan receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement (1h16m!) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called Mon, 20 Mar 1995 19:21:03 -0600 (CST) by Vlad Assigned Tue, 21 Mar 1995 04:20 UTC to Einstein Defaulted Thu, 23 Mar 1995 14:45 UTC by Einstein Assigned Thu, 23 Mar 1995 14:45 UTC to Oerjan Judged FALSE Thu, 23 Mar 1995 17:01:18 +0100 (MET) by Oerjan --> Oerjan receives 5 Points ====================================================================== Statement: "The Move of putting Proposal 1479 up for vote was illegal." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: Arguments: Rule 1003 prohibits proposals "whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player into voting against eir conscience." Now consider 1479. A Player is rewarded for voting ABSTAIN even if he/she would otherwise have voted FOR or AGAINST. Often failing to do so will result in a loss of political power relative to the other Players. This seems like coercion to me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- References: Rule 1003/0 (Mutable, MI=1) No Coercive Proposals Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player into voting against eir conscience are disallowed. Such a proposal is considered not to be "proposed in the proper way". This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which would otherwise allow such a shameful Proposal to be voted on. (*Was: 822*) [relevant text of Proposal 1479] An Extra Vote is created for a Player whenever that Player casts a vote of ABSTAIN on any Proposal, and that Player does not already possess 5 Extra Votes. However, the Player does not receive the Extra Vote created for em by the casting of a vote of ABSTAIN on a Proposal until the results of the voting on that Proposal are published. An Extra Vote is destroyed whenever the Player who possesses it uses it to cast a Vote on a Proposal. ====================================================================== Judgment: FALSE. Reason: The direct intent of Proposal 1479 is to create a Rule; It is only the intent of the Rule (thus indirectly of the Proposal) to coerce us to vote ABSTAIN. ====================================================================== -- kelly martin I have been told that when a large group of people believe in a fantasy, it is called a culture. When a small group believes, it is called a cult. When two people believe in a fantasy, it is called love; and when one person believes, it is called psychosis. From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Fri Mar 24 22:19:29 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id WAA31477; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 22:19:27 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id UAA10679 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 20:23:30 -0800 Received: from mizar.astro.indiana.edu (mizar.astro.indiana.edu [129.79.160.43]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA10621 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 20:23:09 -0800 Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0rsNNN-0001UtC; Fri, 24 Mar 95 23:23 EST Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga) id <2h4g@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Fri, 24 Mar 95 22:12:59 EST5 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 95 22:12:59 EST5 Message-Id: <9503250312.2h4g@poverty.bloomington.in.us> From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin) To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: Concurring Opinion in CFJ 753 Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO The following Concurring Opinion has been attached to CFJ 753. ====================================================================== Concurring Opinion (authored by Steve; joined by Michael and elJefe) Oerjan is of course correct to Judge the CFJ FALSE, but I feel constrained to dissent from his use of the word "coerce". I maintain that the intent, direct or otherwise, of Rule 1442, is not to coerce any Player to vote in any way, but rather to offer Players a different way of thinking about voting. Coercion is the use of force to compel action, and it different from the application of subtle pressures. No Player is being compelled by Rule 1442 to abstain on any proposals. They are being asked to consider the advantages that might accrue from abstaining on some proposals. There's a big difference. ====================================================================== -- kelly martin I have been told that when a large group of people believe in a fantasy, it is called a culture. When a small group believes, it is called a cult. When two people believe in a fantasy, it is called love; and when one person believes, it is called psychosis. From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Tue Mar 28 01:53:06 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id BAA13772; Tue, 28 Mar 1995 01:53:02 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id XAA05874 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 23:58:16 -0800 Received: from mizar.astro.indiana.edu (mizar.astro.indiana.edu [129.79.160.43]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA05850 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 23:58:10 -0800 Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0rtWA9-0001VAC; Tue, 28 Mar 95 02:58 EST Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga) id <2i75@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Tue, 28 Mar 95 02:49:47 EST5 Date: Tue, 28 Mar 95 02:49:47 EST5 Message-Id: <9503280749.2i75@poverty.bloomington.in.us> From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin) To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: Final Judgement of CFJ 755 Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== FINAL JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 755 (Rule 1442/0 must be interpreted such that,...) ====================================================================== Final Judgement: TRUE Judgement of the Clerk of the Courts: TRUE Judgement of the Justiciar: TRUE Judgement of the pro-Speaker: FALSE Clerk of the Courts: Kelly Justiciar: Steve Speaker: elJefe Delegate: TAL Judgement: FALSE Judge: Vlad Eligible to Judge: Andre, Blob, Coren, Dave Bowen, Chuck, Elde, Einstein, Jeffrey, KoJen, Michael, Oerjan, Pascal, Steve, Vanyel, Vlad, TAL, Kelly, Swann Caller: JonRock Barred: elJefe Scorekeepor: Vlad receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement. Steve receives 3 Points for timely Judgement Kelly receives 3 Points for timely Judgement elJefe receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement Vlad must return 5 Points for being overturned ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called Tue, 21 Mar 1995 15:53:28 -0500 by JonRock Assigned Tue, 21 Mar 1995 21:30 UTC to Vlad Judged FALSE Wed, 22 Mar 1995 21:38:13 -0600 (CST) by Vlad --> Vlad receives 5 Points Appealed Thu, 23 Mar 1995 00:55:19 -0500 by JonRock Appealed Thu, 23 Mar 1995 00:31:36 -0600 (CST) by Vanyel Appealed Thu, 23 Mar 1995 20:39:35 +1000 (EST) by Blob Assigned Thu, 23 Mar 1995 11:30 UTC to Steve as Justiciar Assigned Thu, 23 Mar 1995 11:30 UTC to Kelly as CotC Assigned Sat, 25 Mar 1995 03:15 UTC to TAL as pro-Speaker Judged TRUE Sun, 26 Mar 1995 01:27:37 +1100 (EST) by Steve as Justiciar --> Steve receives 3 Points Judged TRUE Mon, 27 Mar 95 06:09:44 EST5 by Kelly as CotC --> Kelly receives 3 Points Judged FALSE Mon, 27 Mar 95 16:59:35 SET by TAL as pro-Speaker --> elJefe receives 5 Points --> Vlad loses 5 Points ====================================================================== Statement: "Rule 1442/0 must be interpreted such that, provided a player does not already possess 5 Extra Votes, that player can gain Extra Votes up to the number of proposals voted on in a single vote message sent to the Speaker, by voting ABSTAIN on any or all of them." I bar elJefe from Judging this statement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: If the voting player does not have 5 EVs at the time of a message to the Speaker containing more than one vote, then it is certainly the case that for any single vote contained in that message that the player does not have 5 EVs at the time of the casting of that vote. Thus any vote of ABSTAIN does satisfy the criterion for creation of an EV for that player, and that player will receive that EV when the results of the voting on that Proposal are published. QED. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- References: Rule 1442/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Extra Votes There is a Currency called Extra Votes. The Recordkeepor for this Currency is the Speaker. Possession of an Extra Vote entitles a Player to cast an extra Vote on a Proposal of eir choice. Extra Votes may be traded between Players, but they may not be owned by Groups. An Extra Vote is created for a Player whenever that Player casts a vote of ABSTAIN on any Proposal, and that Player does not already possess 5 Extra Votes. However, the Player does not receive the Extra Vote created for em by the casting of a vote of ABSTAIN on a Proposal until the results of the voting on that Proposal are published. An Extra Vote is destroyed whenever the Player who possesses it uses it to cast a Vote on a Proposal. Provided that they possess at least one Extra Vote, Players may use a maximum of one Extra Vote per proposal to cast an extra Vote on that Proposal. Extra Votes are cast in the same manner as Votes, as described in other Rules. ====================================================================== Judgment: FALSE Arguments: It is unfortunate that JonRock phrased his CFJ the way he did, because I think his general argument is sound. The problem is that a "single vote message" may contain votes on two batches of proposals distributed at different times. A perfect example would be the last two batches, which I voted on in a single message. The first batch's Voting Period will end first, possibly creating Extra Votes which would prevent the gaining of EV's from ABSTAIN Votes in the second batch. Thus JonRock's statement does not hold in all cases. Vlad ====================================================================== Judgement of the Justiciar: TRUE I overturn Judge Vlad's ruling and Judge that the Statement is TRUE. Vlad's argument misreads JonRock's Statement. Given the wording of that Statement, the issue is not whether there is any possible case where a Player *cannot* gain EVs as JonRock suggests, but whether there is any possible case where e *can* gain them. The point is, as JonRock says and I feel sure the other Justices will agree, that EVs under Rule 1442/0 are created at the time of voting, but not distributed until the the time of publication. Hence, a Player like Michael, who did as a matter of fact abstain on all 35 of the Proposals 1499-1533, does in fact receive 35 EVs, since at the time he voted he did not possess any EVs at all. ====================================================================== Judgement of the Clerk of the Courts: TRUE I judge this CFJ to be TRUE, overturning Vlad's original decision. Rule 1442/0 is clear in the matter of the timing of the creation and awarding of Extra Votes. The Vote is created when the Vote is Cast, and it is Game Custom that a Vote is Cast at the moment the Vote is received by the Speaker. However, the Extra Vote thus created is not given to the Player until the results are published, so a Player might have any number of Extra Votes in "abeyance" during the period between the moment e casts a Vote of ABSTAIN and the end of the Voting Period of that Proposal. These Votes are _not_ in the possession of the Voter (it is unclear exactly what Nomic Entity _is_ in possession of them, but I do not believe that this issue is of importance here). Therefore, the simple act of casting a Vote of ABSTAIN does _not_ immediately increase a Player's holding of Extra Votes, and therefore a Player is not limited in the number of such "virtual" Extra Votes e might accrue (as long as e does not have 5 or more actual Extra Votes). As an aside, I do not see how Judge Vlad's argument applies in any way whatsoever. As long as the vote is cast prior to the receipt of any Extra Votes which would cause the Player to have 4 or more actual Extra Votes, the Player does accrue the Virtual Extra Votes to which e is entitled, even if e does vote upon Proposals with differing Voting Periods in a single message. Kelly Martin Clerk of the Courts ====================================================================== Judgement of the pro-Speaker: FALSE Arguments: It seems that it all comes down to the word `possess'. Can the Player for whom the Extra Vote is created when e casts eir vote, be considered to *possess* that Extra Vote as soon as the time of its creation? This delegate-Justice, not particularly known for his fluency in English, is of the opinion that the answer is yes. It is certain that the Extra Vote created, exists between the time the Player casts eir Vote and the time the Voting Results are published. If it is not the Player who owns this newly created Extra Vote, who does? The Extra Vote is a Currency and according to Rule 611 `No non-player Nomic entity may own Currencies except as provided for in the Rules.' As the Rules are silent, I may exclude any other Nomic Entity as temporary possessor of the Extra Vote. Nevertheless, between the time of it's creation and the time of publication of the Voting Results the Recordkeepor of the EV is obliged to keep track of it, that is, attribute it to somebody? Logically, it is the Player which casted the Extra Vote, who possesses it. References: Rule 611/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Currencies: Who May Own Currencies Players may own any type of Currency. No non-player Nomic entity may own Currencies except as provided for in the Rules. The number of each type of Currency owned by each player or other Nomic entity must be non-negative, and must be an integer. This rule applies to Currencies in general, and thus defers to rules for specific Currencies. Rule 1442/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Extra Votes There is a Currency called Extra Votes. The Recordkeepor for this Currency is the Speaker. Possession of an Extra Vote entitles a Player to cast an extra Vote on a Proposal of eir choice. Extra Votes may be traded between Players, but they may not be owned by Groups. An Extra Vote is created for a Player whenever that Player casts a vote of ABSTAIN on any Proposal, and that Player does not already possess 5 Extra Votes. However, the Player does not receive the Extra Vote created for em by the casting of a vote of ABSTAIN on a Proposal until the results of the voting on that Proposal are published. An Extra Vote is destroyed whenever the Player who possesses it uses it to cast a Vote on a Proposal. Provided that they possess at least one Extra Vote, Players may use a maximum of one Extra Vote per proposal to cast an extra Vote on that Proposal. Extra Votes are cast in the same manner as Votes, as described in other Rules. ====================================================================== -- kelly martin I have been told that when a large group of people believe in a fantasy, it is called a culture. When a small group believes, it is called a cult. When two people believe in a fantasy, it is called love; and when one person believes, it is called psychosis. ====================================================================== FINAL JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 756 (Rule 1003/0 should be interpreted...) ====================================================================== Final Judgement: FALSE Judgement of the pro-Clerk of the Courts: FALSE Judgement of the Justiciar: FALSE Judgement of the Speaker: TRUE Clerk of the Courts: Kelly Delegate: elJefe Justiciar: Steve Speaker: Vanyel Judgement: TRUE Judge: JonRock Eligible to Judge: Andre, Blob, Coren, Dave Bowen, Chuck, Elde, elJefe, Jeffrey, JonRock, KoJen, Oerjan, Pascal, Steve, TAL, Vanyel, Vlad Caller: Swann Barred: Kelly, Michael Scorekeepor: JonRock receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement Steve receives 5 Points for instantaneous Judgement Vanyel receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement elJefe receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement JonRock must return 5 Points for being overturned Note: JonRock's Injunction is set aside. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called Fri, 24 Mar 1995 16:40:10 -0500 by Swann Assigned Sat, 25 Mar 1995 04:15 to JonRock Judged TRUE Sun, 26 Mar 1995 21:31:38 -0500 by JonRock --> JonRock receives 5 Points Appealed Sun, 26 Mar 1995 22:30:49 -0600 (CST) by Vanyel Appealed Mon, 27 Mar 95 03:01:19 EST5 by Kelly Appealed Mon, 27 Mar 1995 17:46:29 +1000 (EST) by Steve Assigned Mon, 27 Mar 1995 09:20 UTC to Steve as Justiciar Assigned Mon, 27 Mar 1995 09:20 UTC to Vanyel as Speaker Judged FALSE Mon, 27 Mar 1995 18:55:43 +1000 (EST) by Steve as Justiciar --> Steve receives 5 Points Assigned Wed, 29 Mar 1995 10:30 UTC to elJefe as pro-CotC Judged TRUE Wed, 29 Mar 1995 04:03:42 -0600 (CST) by Vanyel as Speaker --> Vanyel receives 5 Points Judged FALSE Wed, 29 Mar 95 12:03:38 EST by elJefe --> elJefe receives 5 Points --> JonRock loses 5 Points ====================================================================== Statement: "Rule 1003/0 should be interpreted to disallow Proposals that create Rules that include, or amend Rules to include, sanctions that penalize players for the way they vote on the Proposal adopting the Rule change in question." Relevant Rules: 1003/0 Injunction: If Judged TRUE, Rule 1003/0 should be annotated as allowed by Rule 789/1. I bar Kelly and Michael from Judging this statement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: Kelly has made an argument that in the situation I've stated, it is the *Rule* not the *Proposal* that is doing the coercion. I maintain, as does Michael, that the threat of force-- say proposing a rule with the clause, "All Players who did not vote For this rule immediately lose 100 Points upon its adoption."-- is in itself coercive, even if it is the Rule itself that is doing the penalizing. In the example above, even though it is the Rule that takes the 100 Points from the Player, I maintain that it is the "obvious and direct intent" of including such a clause in a proposal to "coerce a Player into voting against eir conscience." Note, it says "a" Player not "all" Players. If *any* Player is changing eir vote based on such a clause, e is being coerced. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- References: Rule 1003/0 (Mutable, MI=1) No Coercive Proposals Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player into voting against eir conscience are disallowed. Such a proposal is considered not to be "proposed in the proper way". This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which would otherwise allow such a shameful Proposal to be voted on. (*Was: 822*) ====================================================================== Judgement: TRUE It is clear to me that the obvious and direct intent of any Proposal is to allow the occurrence of any actions and game moves which would occur according to the Rules during the voting period of that Proposal, and upon the adoption of that Proposal, by satisfying a major requirement for such actions and game moves to occur. Thus, that obvious and direct intent is both a promise and a threat that such actions and game moves WILL occur, after the remaining requirements have been satisfied (i.e., publication and/or adoption). If a Proposal would create a Rule(s), or amend a Rule(s), to cause immediate penalties to individual players based on their voting on that Proposal, then the obvious and direct intent of the Proposal does include the threat to recognize those penalties, in addition to the Proposal's other effects. This threat to penalize based on voting is coercion to vote against conscience. The above reasoning is sufficient to rule on the statement of the CFJ, but other points are noteworthy: o Kelly's argument fails in that the Rule is not doing the coercing; the Rule is doing the actual penalizing. The Proposal, carrying the implicit threat to penalize, is what is coercive. o The threatened penalty may include, but is not limited to, (a) unconsented loss of any Currency or Points, whether or not remuneration in another form is provided for by the same Proposal, or (b) unconsented loss of any ability to perform actions within the game, including loss of any ability to submit Proposals and loss of any freedom of vote choice on any future Proposal. (The utility of any of these possessions and rights, to the Player possessing them, cannot be judged by anyone else and must be regarded as maximal. In addition, Rule 783/0 also prohibits some of these penalties.) o Coercion to vote against conscience is NOT present if the penalty imposed by the adoption of a Proposal (i.e., threatened by the Proposal itself) is not based on the vote of the Player to be penalized. In this case, the Player clearly does have the freedom to vote with eir conscience (i.e., AGAINST the Proposal to impose the penalty). o Coercion to vote against conscience is still present if the Rule imposing the penalty based on voting is not the Rule created or amended by the Proposal, as it is still an unconsented penalty threatened by the Proposal and recognized upon adoption of the Proposal. This is in contrast to Rule 783/0, which only disallows changes based on clauses in the Proposal itself. o Coercion to vote against conscience is still present if a penalty based on a Player's voting would occur even if the Proposal does not pass. This penalty would obviously have to be imposed by another Rule already adopted, but it is the submission of the Proposal to which that Rule would apply that is the threat to make the penalty occur. Thus, a Rule stating "Any Player voting AGAINST Player X's next Proposal loses 10 Points" will have the paradoxical effect of not allowing Player X to make any more Proposals, since all of eir submissions are illegal under 1003/0. It is only by desperate appeal to Game Custom that this Rule allows any Proposal submissions at all, since the presence of the F-A reward/penalty in 833/0 can be considered coercive of the vote of the Player who submits any Proposal! --------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 783/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Illegality of Bonus Clauses Proposals which contain clauses awarding, trading, penalizing, or otherwise changing the account of any Nomic Entity's holding of Points or any other form of Currency based on the Vote they cast on that Proposal are invalid, shall not be deemed to have been properly submitted, and shall not be Voted upon. Rule 833/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Reward or Penalty for Proposing When the voting period for a proposal is over, the proposer gets F-A points, where F is the number of votes FOR, and A is the number of votes AGAINST. However, only the Votes of Voters shall be counted for this determination. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Injunction: The Rulekeepor is enjoined to annotate Rule 1003/0 with the statement of this CFJ, the list of relevant Rules including only 1003/0 itself. (Rules 783/0 and 833/0 are included in the Judgement for reference purposes only.) ====================================================================== Judgement of the Justiciar: FALSE I overturn JonRock's Judgement and find the Statement to be FALSE. Rule 1003 prohibits the making of proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player into voting against eir conscience. In effect, JonRock was asked to judge whether a proposal which penalizes (or rewards) Players on the basis of how they vote on it counts as coercive in the sense of Rule 1003. However, he chooses in his Judgement to concentrate on the issue of whether it is the Proposal or the Rule that the Proposal creates (ab initio or by amendment) that does the coercion. He ignores what seems to me to be the more fundamental issue - in the sense that the truth of the CFJ can be determined with respect to this issue alone without the complications considered by JonRock - which is whether the threat of penalty alone is sufficient to establish the existence of coercion, or whether, in order to clearly establish the presence of coercion, it is necessary to further consider the precise nature of the threat being made. In his Judgement, JonRock assumes without argument that the mere existence of the threat of penalty implies coercion. In my judgement, this is a mistake. Coercion is the use of force to compel action. Of course, drawing the line beyond which the pressure brought to bear on an agent is considered to be coercive is a somewhat vague and arbitrary matter, but we can nevertheless distinguish cases which definitely fall on either side of that line. "Give me all your money or I'll kill you" clearly is coercive; "Give me all your money or I'll pinch you" clearly is not, no matter how unpleasant the pinching. Clearly, in order to determine whether a threat of penalty is coercive or not, it is necessary to inquire into the exact nature and severity of the threatened penalty. So it is not true that Rule 1003 simply prohibits the making of Proposals which threaten to penalize Players on the basis of how they vote on it. While it may prohibit *some* such Proposals, it will allow others. Hence I Judge that the Statement is FALSE. ====================================================================== Judgement of the Speaker: TRUE Reasoning: I first look at the definition of "coerce": coerce vb 1: REPRESS 2: COMPEL 3: ENFORCE Hmm, not very helpful. Next, I check repress vb 1: curb, subdue 2: restrain, suppress compel vb to drive or urge with force enforce vb 1: COMPEL (~ obedience by threats) 2: to execute with vigour (~ the law) Aha, these are more helpful. First, if "coerce" is meant in the sense of "repress", a Proposal is coercive if only it curbs or restrains certain Voting patterns; for example, giving rewards to Vote otherwise. If "coerce" is meant in its second sense, a Proposal is coercive if it uses some sort of force to "drive or urge" a Player to Vote one way over another. The way "coerce" is used, its third meaning makes no sense, as Proposals cannot "execute with vigour" much of anything at all. Then, taking the other meanings and applying them to the situation at hand: we have a Proposal, which is to Amend a Rule, and because of something within that Proposal, some subset of Players may be penalized, based on their Vote. Clearly, then, that Proposal is urging those Players to Vote in a certain way, using the force of the implied threat of the Proposal actually passing. It is subduing those who might Vote another way into Voting a certain way. . . clearly, this is coercion. Therefore, I Judge TRUE. Vanyel ====================================================================== Judgement of the pro-Clerk of the Courts: FALSE Justice Steve puts his finger on the essential flaw in the Statement, which would cancel any Proposal which might act against those voting in a particular way, no matter how indirectly or slightly. Judge JonRock was correct to identify "coerce" as the threat of a penalty, as opposed to the penalty itself. However, coercion must also include a real and identifiable threat. Otherwise Proposal 1042 could be considered as in violation of this Rule, since it placed players not voting on it in the position of having to perform some other action within two weeks, or be deregistered. The fact that probably no-one's conscience would prevent them from voting, or that the required action is trivial to perform, would not prevent the Statement of the CFJ from cancelling Proposal 1042. This is not to say that it is easy to draw the line between encouragement and coercion. But clearly there is a distinction. I do not know which side of the line Proposal 1535 (for example) falls on; but I have no hesitation in declaring the blanket prohibition in the Statement to be FALSE. - Justice elJefe ====================================================================== -- kelly martin I have been told that when a large group of people believe in a fantasy, it is called a culture. When a small group believes, it is called a cult. When two people believe in a fantasy, it is called love; and when one person believes, it is called psychosis. ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 757 (Acting Promotor Vanyel violated rule 783...) ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Judge: Coren Eligible to Judge: Andre, Blob, Coren, Dave Bowen, Elde, elJefe, Jeffrey, JonRock, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Oerjan, Steve, Swann, TAL, Vanyel, Vlad, Xanadu Judge: Chuck, declined Eligible to Judge: Andre, Blob, Coren, Dave Bowen, Chuck, Elde, elJefe, Jeffrey, JonRock, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Oerjan, Steve, Swann, TAL, Vanyel, Vlad Caller: Pascal Scorekeepor: Chuck loses 2 Points for declining appointment, one of which goes to Kelly. Coren receives 3 Points for timely Judgement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called Sun, 26 Mar 1995 12:04:46 -0500 by Pascal Assigned Mon, 27 Mar 1995 00:45 UTC to Chuck Declined Mon, 27 Mar 1995 17:35:12 -0600 by Chuck --> Chuck loses 2 Points --> Kelly gains 1 Point Reassigned Tue, 28 Mar 1995 08:20 UTC to Coren Judged FALSE Mon, 3 Apr 1995 14:33:18 -0700 (PDT) by Coren --> Coren receives 3 Points ====================================================================== Statement: "Acting Promotor Vanyel violated rule 783 by distributing proposal 1535." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: Rule 783 states: Proposals which contain clauses awarding, trading, penalizing, or otherwise changing the account of any Nomic Entity's holding of Points or any form of currency based on the Vote they cast on that Proposal are invalid, shall not be deemed to have been properly submitted, and shall not be Voted on. Proposal 1535: Amend our oldest Rule! Amend Rule 312 to read: If a Voter votes and if e voted FOR the Amendment of Rule 312, e gets one (1) point at the end of the Voting Period. [The obvious and direct intent of this Proposal is to redefine the conditions upon which a Player will receive the Vote award. As such it does not conflict with 1003.] Proposal 1535 penalizes players who don't vote FOR it, and is in violation of rule 783 #### Note: #### I don't think the EV proposals violate this, because they award EVs (a currency) based on votes on _other_ proposals. Of course by this reasoning I would also call a proposal such as: 'every time a Player votes for a proposal submitted by Pascal, e receives 10 points' legal... IMO, the coersion (sp?) and bonus clause rules need to be revised... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- References: [[Caller Pascal integrates his References into his Argument]] ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE. Rule 783 specifically states that any Proposals "which contain clauses awarding" ... "Points" ... "based on the Vote they cast on that Proposal" are "invalid, shall not be deemed to have been properly submitted, and shall not be Voted upon." Since Proposal 1535 specifically awards Points to Players based on their Voting FOR Proposal 1535, by Rule 783 this Proposal invalid, not properly submitted, and should not have been Voted upon. The fact that the Points are not awarded immediately is immaterial - Rule 783 does not specify a time limit in which the Point awards must take place, and the stated awards on future Proposals are directly tied to the Players' Votes on 1535. However: While I believe that Proposal 1535 was indeed "invalid", "not properly submitted" and should "not have been Voted upon", the fact remains that at no place in Rule 783 does it say that the Promotor shall not distribute such an invalid Proposal, nor does any other Rule I have been able to ascertain. Therefore, in no way did Acting Promoter Vanyel violate Rule 783 by distributing Proposal 1535, and I am constrained to find this CFJ FALSE. I would like to note that, while the I believe the submission of this Proposal to be legal, I suspect that all Votes cast on it, including this Judges, were NOT legal, and should not be counted., by virtue of Rule 783. Judge Coren ====================================================================== -- kelly martin I have been told that when a large group of people believe in a fantasy, it is called a culture. When a small group believes, it is called a cult. When two people believe in a fantasy, it is called love; and when one person believes, it is called psychosis. From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Mon Apr 10 22:09:49 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id WAA05703 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 22:09:46 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id UAA08089 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 20:08:39 -0700 Received: from mizar.astro.indiana.edu (mizar.astro.indiana.edu [129.79.160.43]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA07984 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 20:08:10 -0700 Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0ryWJ9-0001XgC; Mon, 10 Apr 95 22:08 EST Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga) id <2nta@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Mon, 10 Apr 95 20:48:08 EST5 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 95 20:48:08 EST5 Message-Id: <9504110148.2nta@poverty.bloomington.in.us> From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin) To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: CFJ758: Judgement Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 758 (Rule 833 and 1438 must be interpretated as such...) ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Judge: elJefe Eligible to Judge: Blob, Coren, Dave Bowen, Chuck, Elde, elJefe, Jeffrey, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Oerjan, Steve, Vlad, Pascal, Xanadu Judge: JonRock, defaulted Eligible to Judge: Blob, Coren, Dave Bowen, Chuck, Elde, elJefe, Jeffrey, JonRock, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Oerjan, Steve, Vlad, Pascal, Xanadu Caller: TAL Scorekeepor: JonRock loses 10 Points for defaulting elJefe receives 3 Points for timely Judgement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called Mon, 27 Mar 95 14:57:43 SET by TAL Assigned Mon, 27 Mar 1995 14:05 UTC to JonRock Defaulted Mon, 3 Mar 1995 14:05 UTC by JonRock --> JonRock loses 10 Points Reassigned Wed, 5 Apr 1995 07:48 UTC to elJefe Judged TRUE Mon, 10 Apr 95 09:29:43 EDT by elJefe --> elJefe receives 3 Points ====================================================================== Statement: "Rule 833 and 1438 must be interpretated as such, that the F-A Points, that a Player gets, when the voting Period for a Proposal is over, are a punitive pointloss, in those cases where F-A turns out to be negative." Barred Players: Andre, Swann, Vanyel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: 1438 explicitly excludes pointlosses that are: "the direct result of submission of or Voting on a Proposal" as being Punitive. But a `direct result' is a result that stems immediately from a source, cause, or reason, which in the case of the F-A pointloss is not true. The F-A pointloss is the result of a number of causes, that act together: - the Player submitted the Proposal - the Proposal was distributed - the Proposal was voted upon - more Players voted AGAINST than voted FOR - the F-A points were not halved by virtue of Rule 1061 - the Speaker/Assessor did not forget to report the Points, which would cancel the score change. This might be farfetched but is not. What happens if the score change is not reported? There will be a Claim of Error; the error will be corrected; but in that case the pointloss (now applied after all) has changed its nature, as an "Adjustments made as part of a correction in the Game State" can never be punitive (1438 again). An F-A Pointloss is therefore hardly the direct result of the submission or the vote in itself. Consequently, the Pointloss is punitive. Note: this CFJ envisages to counter Andre's bid for a Championship using Points earned in a previous Game and hibernated in the Reform Treasury. The failure of 1529 resulted in -7 F-A points, which (if considered Punitive) would result in a number of Blots. And one is enough.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- References: Rule 833/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Reward or Penalty for Proposing When the voting period for a proposal is over, the proposer gets F-A points, where F is the number of votes FOR, and A is the number of votes AGAINST. However, only the Votes of Voters shall be counted for this determination. (*Was: 544*) Rule 1061/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Bonus to New Players For the first five consecutive Nomic Weeks following the registration of a Player who has not played in this Nomic previously, that Player shall receive 5 Points for each week in which e submits one or more Proposals to the Speaker, and any penalties which are the direct result of voting on such Proposals are halved; all of these shall be reported to the Scorekeepor by the Speaker. Rule 1438/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Blots Due to a Punititve Point Loss A Punitive Point Loss is a point loss that results in gaining Blots. Whenever a Rule calls for a Punitive Point loss, the Player losing Points will receive Blots equal to half the number of Points lost, rounded down. Punitive Point Losses are those losses *not* due to: i) Voluntary transfers of Points to any other Player or any other Nomic Entity. ii) Voluntary destruction of a Player's own Points. iii) the direct result of submission of or Voting on a Proposal iv) Adjustments made as part of a correction in the Game State. v) The reset of scores due to the end of a Game. vi) A score change that a Rule specifically designates as Non-Punitive. vii) Rules that also adjust the number of Blots a Player has. Further, a Point Loss ceases to be Punitive when the Rule mandating the Loss is amended to explicitly state either of the following: i) The Rule does not impose a Blot penalty. ii) The Rule does impose a Blot penalty, the amount of the Blot penalty, and the Player responsible for reporting those Blots to the Tabulator. Players Legally Responsible for reporting Punitive Point losses to the Scorekeepor also have the Legal Responsibility to report Blots due to those Punitive Point losses to the Tabulator. This Rule shall remain in effect until there are no longer any Punitive Point Losses defined in the Ruleset, at which point this Rule will repeal itself. History: Created by Proposal 1459, Mar. 1 1995 Amended(1) by Proposal 1495, Mar. 15 1995 ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Rule 1438 explicitly excludes point losses that are "the direct result of submission of or Voting on a Proposal" as being Punitive. TAL's argument is that F-A point losses are not "directly" the result of voting. In support of this, he offered a variety of circumstances which must be present for F-A points to be lost, and others which might prevent or modify the point loss. Under this interpretation, it is hard to see that _anything_ would count as being the "direct" result of voting. A more sensible interpretation is to say that a point loss is the direct result of voting if there is a rule directing that a certain voting outcome results in the point loss. That is: if a Rule says "if A, then X", X is the direct result of A. It would be "indirect" if the Rules specified some intermediate cause between the voting and the point loss. That is, if the rules instead say "if A, then B", and "if B, then X", X is an indirect result of A. Nor is it necessary for "directness" that the voting be the sole cause of the result. If the Rule says "if A and B, then X", X is the direct result of A and B together, and can be thought of as a direct result of either. Thus a Proposal to award the Scamster Title, if adopted, would cause a Punitive Point loss of 1 Point. This is a result of the voting, but not a "direct" result, since there is an intermediate cause: the voting causes the adoption of the proposal and the award of the Scamster title, and the award of the title causes the point loss. Under this interpretation an F-A point loss is "the direct result of voting", by Rule 833. --ElJefe, Judge ====================================================================== -- kelly martin I have been told that when a large group of people believe in a fantasy, it is called a culture. When a small group believes, it is called a cult. When two people believe in a fantasy, it is called love; and when one person believes, it is called psychosis. From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Thu Mar 30 00:57:44 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id AAA07320; Thu, 30 Mar 1995 00:57:42 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id XAA08142 for nomic-official-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 1995 23:03:05 -0800 Received: from mizar.astro.indiana.edu (mizar.astro.indiana.edu [129.79.160.43]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA08111 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 1995 23:02:57 -0800 Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0ruEFr-0001V0C; Thu, 30 Mar 95 02:02 EST Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga) id <2j8y@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Thu, 30 Mar 95 01:56:06 EST5 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 95 01:56:06 EST5 Message-Id: <9503300656.2j8y@poverty.bloomington.in.us> From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin) To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: CFJ759: Judgement Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 759 (The latest Score report (dated March 26) has TAL's score in error...) ====================================================================== Judgement: TRUE Judge: Dave Bowen Eligible to Judge: Blob, Coren, Dave Bowen, Elde, elJefe, Jeffrey, JonRock, Kelly, Michael, Oerjan, Steve, Vlad, Pascal, Xanadu, Andre, Swann, Vanyel Caller: TAL Scorekeepor: Dave Bowen receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called Tue, 28 Mar 95 16:41:49 SET Assigned Wed, 29 Mar 1995 10:30 UTC to Dave Bowen Judged TRUE Wed, 29 Mar 1995 12:40:21 -0600 by Dave Bowen --> Dave Bowen receives 5 Points ====================================================================== Statement: "The latest Score report (dated March 26) has TAL's score in error, as it did not take into account the Officer salaries TAL should have received since the beginning of the current game." Barred Players: KoJen, Chuck ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: According to Rule 1007 `Officers shall receive a salary of 3 Points per week, unless another Rule explicitly states another salary', while according to Rule 1006 `An Officer is any Player who has been Appointed or Elected to an Office specified in the Rules.' Well, in the past I have been CotC and I have been Scorekeepor. That makes me still an Officer according to 1006 and therefore I presume I have right to the 3 Points falling each Monday to Officers. In this case that means all Mondays since the start of the current Game. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- References: Rule 1007/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Default Salary of Officers Officers (excluding Viziers, Ordinancekeepors, and any other Officers whose duties pertain only to a single Group) shall receive a salary of 3 Points per week, unless another Rule explicitly states another salary. Rule 1006/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Defaults for Officers An Officer is any Player who has been Appointed or Elected to an Office specified in the Rules. A Judge is not an Officer. An Officer may be replaced by another Player by a Directive to install that Player into the Office. The Proposal containing such a Directive shall have an Adoption Index of at least 1. An Officer may resign at any time, provided e appoints a successor. If an Officer resigns while a Referendum is being voted upon to replace eim, the Player thus proposed will by eis Successor. An Officer shall be appointed only if e consents. This Rule applies to general Offices, and therefore defers to Rules for specific Offices. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994 ====================================================================== Judgment: TRUE Explanation: First, I note that I was strongly tempted to decline judgement for I am in a situation similar to TAL. I have served as Banker and Clerk of the Courts over the history of this game and could conceivably benefit from this decision. But I note that much of the Agora community is also in this situation and for me to disqualify myself just because my own situation could be affected could set a precedent that would leave us with a critically small pool of potential justices. I believe that I can decide this case on its merits without the possible benefit affecting my judgement. Rule 1006/1 is quite clear in its definition of an Officer as "any Player who has been Appointed or Elected to an Office specified in the Rules." TAL certainly meets this criterion. Now Rule 1006/1 also states that "An Officer may resign at any time, provided e appoints a successor." One might argue an Officer ceases to be an Officer at the point where e resigns eis last Office. I contend that if that were the case Rule 1006/1 would have stated that an Officer is any Player who currently hold an Office specified in the Rules or some similar statement. Furthermore, I note in Rule 880/0, which TAL did not cite, that "No Officer may be 'On Hold' while holding an Office." If one ceases to be an Officer when one resigns the Office, then the language in Rule 880 is redundant. It seems apparent that the author of Rule 880 believed that Officers remained Officers even when not holding Office. Thus I find that TAL was an Officer and remained an Officer even after he resigned his Office. Having reached this conclusion, Rule 1007/0 quite clearly states that all Officers, and not just those holding Office, shall receive a salary of 3 Points per week, unless another Rule explicitly says another salary. Since there is no Rule specifying another salary for former officeholders, TAL should be paid the 3 Points per week salary specified in Rule 1007/0. ====================================================================== -- kelly martin I have been told that when a large group of people believe in a fantasy, it is called a culture. When a small group believes, it is called a cult. When two people believe in a fantasy, it is called love; and when one person believes, it is called psychosis. From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Wed Apr 12 10:41:32 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA09940 for ; Wed, 12 Apr 1995 10:41:26 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id IAA24003 for nomic-official-outgoing; Wed, 12 Apr 1995 08:37:58 -0700 Received: from mizar.astro.indiana.edu (mizar.astro.indiana.edu [129.79.160.43]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA23949 for ; Wed, 12 Apr 1995 08:37:42 -0700 Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0rz4U8-0001VEC; Wed, 12 Apr 95 10:37 EST Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga) id <2oor@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Wed, 12 Apr 95 10:29:49 EST5 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 95 10:29:49 EST5 Message-Id: <9504121529.2oor@poverty.bloomington.in.us> From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin) To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: CFJ760: Final Judgement Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== FINAL JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 760 (Rule 1446 must be interpreted as such,...) ====================================================================== Final Judgement: FALSE Judgement of the pro-Clerk of the Courts: FALSE Judgement of the Justiciar: FALSE Judgement of the Speaker: FALSE Clerk of the Courts: Kelly Delegate: elJefe Justiciar: Steve Speaker: Vanyel Judgement: TRUE Judge: Kelly Eligible to Judge: Blob, Coren, Chuck, Elde, elJefe, Jeffrey S, JonRock, Kelly, Michael, Oerjan, Pascal, Steve, Swann, Vanyel, Vlad, Xanadu Caller: TAL Scorekeepor: Kelly receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement elJefe receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement Steve receives 3 Points for timely Judgement Kelly must return 5 Points for being overturned ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called Mon, 03 Apr 95 17:02:20 SET by TAL Assigned Mon, 3 Apr 1995 16:55 UTC to Kelly Judged TRUE Mon, 3 Apr 95 13:51:22 EST5 by Kelly --> Kelly receives 5 Points Appealed Mon, 3 Apr 95 17:03:28 EDT by elJefe Appealed Tue, 4 Apr 1995 02:40:00 -0400 by Swann Appealed Wed, 5 Apr 95 10:33:39 -0400 by KoJen Assigned Wed, 5 Apr 1995 19:45 UTC to elJefe as pro-CotC Assigned Wed, 5 Apr 1995 19:45 UTC to Steve as Justiciar Assigned Wed, 5 Apr 1995 19:45 UTC to Vanyel as Speaker Judged FALSE Wed, 5 Apr 95 17:18:57 EDT by elJefe --> elJefe receives 5 Points Judged FALSE Wed, 12 Apr 1995 13:07:46 +1000 (EST) by Steve --> Steve receives 3 Points Judged FALSE Wed, 12 Apr 1995 00:58:28 -0500 (CDT) by Vanyel --> Vanyel receives 3 Points --> Kelly loses 5 Points ====================================================================== Statement: "Rule 1446 must be interpreted as such, that the transfer from the Abelain Group to the Scam Contest Fund and the transfer from Scam Contest Fund to TAL, when the Scam Contest was dissolved, are both legal." Barred Players: KoJen, Dave Bowen, Andre ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: Rule 1011 (Game Entities May Not Be Arbitrarily Changed) and Rule 692 (Trading Points) which normally prohibit the two transfers are both preceeded by 1446. Thus both transfers are legal, the first being allowed by good old 116. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- References (contest announcement and various Rules): ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE CONTEST Name: Scam Contest Regulations: 1) The Contest has at most one participant 2) The initial Contestmaster is TAL, until 1 second after he becomes Contestant. No other provision for a Contestmaster is given in these Regulations 3) The entry fee is 1 Point 4) Immediately after the one and only participant has paid his fee, 300 Points shall be transfered from the Abelian Group to the Scam Contest fund. ========== In case you wondered, this transfer is allowed because Rule 1446 states: "This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules which determine which Point and Currency transfers are legal and/or taxable" 1446 therefore takes precedence over Rule 1011 (Game Entities May Not Be Arbitrarily Changed) ] ========== Scorekeepor, please take note: I, TAL, transfer 1 Point to the Scam Contest Fund, thusly becoming the one and only Participant. Immediately 300 Points are transfered from the Abelian Group Treasury to the Scam Contest Fund. One second later, the Scam Contest no longer has a Contestmaster and is dissolved. By Rule 1446 the contents of the Scam Contest Fund is divided over the partipants. Hence TAL receives 301 Points, enough to win the current game. ========== Rule 116/0 (Semimutable, MI=3) Permissibility of the Unprohibited Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a Rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the Rules, which is permitted only when a Rule or set of Rules explicitly or implicitly permits it. Rule 692/2 (Mutable, MI=1) Trading Points A Player may voluntarily transfer Points to any other Player for any purpose, within the following limits: (a) the transfer must be posted to the Public Forum (b) a Player may only transfer a positive number of Points (c) a Player may not transfer more Points than e currently has (d) a Player may not transfer Points if the recipient has more than than 90% of the Points required to Win, or would pass this limit as a result of the transfer. If any agreement among Players includes any transfer of Points between two Players then each such transfer shall be in accordance with the above. But this Rule shall not be construed as having any bearing on the legality or legal enforceability of any terms of said agreement which do not involve such a transfer. All Nomic Entities shall abide by the above limits whenever Points are traded. If a Nomic Entity must trade Points by the current Rules but would end up breaking the above limits, then the Nomic Entity trades the maximum amount possible without breaking any of the above limits. This Rule shall have precedence over all other Rules pertaining to the Trading of Points. Rule 1011/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Game Entities May Not Be Arbitrarily Changed Any Entity which is created by the Nomic Rules, and which exists only within the context of Agora Nomic (such as Points, Votes, Currencies and any Official Records) may *not* be changed by any action other than those specified by the Rules. No two Nomic Entities (including Players) shall have the same name or nickname. (*Was: 450*) Rule 1446/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Contests A contest is a subgame of Agora Nomic, having its own Name, Entry Fee, Regulations, Contestmaster, and Contest Fund. It is created when a Player posts to the Public Forum an announcement of the contest, including the Name and Regulations. Participants in the subgame are called Contestants of that contest. The player making the post becomes the Contestmaster. The Contestmaster for a given Contest is a Player who has responsibility for administering the subgame. He reports all score changes and currency transfers taking place under the Regulations, administers the Contest Fund, and maintains the Regulations. The Contest Fund is an entity capable of owning, trading, and spending Points or Currencies in the same manner as a Player, but only as authorized by the Regulations. The Regulations specify the operation of the Contest. All Contestants, and the Contestmaster, are bound by the Regulations except where these conflict with the Rules. They may also specify: - how the Contestmaster is replaced, - how currencies and Points are transferred to or from the Contest Fund, - the amount of the Entry Fee for the Contest, which shall be in Points, - additional restrictions on Players to become Contestants, - how the Regulations may be changed, and - ways for the Contest to be dissolved. A Player becomes a Contestant by notifying the Contestmaster and paying the prescribed Entry Fee to the Contest Fund. A Contestant may quit a Contest at any time by so notifying the Contestmaster, or by so posting to the Public Forum. A contest is dissolved when there is no Contestmaster and no provision for replacing em, or as otherwise provided in the rules, or in the Regulations. When this happens the Contest Fund is distributed as provided in the Regulations; if no provision is made the Fund is divided equally between the Contestants. If according to the Regulations the Contest Fund must transfer Points and/or currency to a Contestant, and the Fund does not have sufficient resources, then enough of the Contestmaster's Points and/or currency are transferred to the Fund to cover the transaction. If e does not have sufficient Points or currency to accomplish this, then each Contestant is given back eir entry fee, and the Contestmaster loses the number of Points of the returned entry fees. The Contest is then dissolved. No Blots shall be assigned by this Rule. This transfer is not taxable. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules which determine which Point and Currency transfers are legal and/or taxable, or which would assign Blots to any Player. ====================================================================== Judgement: TRUE In the matter of Call for Judgement Number 760, I hereby enter a Judgement of TRUE, for the reasons detailed below. Rule 1446 declares that a Contest is created when an announcement of the Contest is posted to the Public Forum, specifying the Name and Regulations of the Contest. TAL did so by posting the announcement to nomic-business, which has been designated by the Distributor as a Public Forum at approximately 16:59 UTC on 3 Apr 1995. The Regulations specify TAL as Contestmaster initially, which is consistent with Rule 1446. TAL is a Player, according to the most recent Registrar's Report. I therefore find that the Scam Contest was legally created. I also find that TAL legally joined the Contest, at the same time it was created (or, for the quantum time people, at a time T seconds later, where T is the smallest unit of time allowed by natural law). As to the first transfer, from Abelian Group's Treasury to the Contest Fund, I find that it was only legal, but not of the size claimed by TAL in his message to the Public Forum. The Regulations are permitted, by 1446, to specify the manner in which currencies and Points are transferred to or from the Contest Fund. I interpret this to mean that the Regulations of a Contest may, under conditions specified in the Regulations, require transfers into the Contest Fund from other sources. I cannot find any specific Rule which would prohibit a transfer out of a Group's Treasury, aside from Rule 1011. But Rule 1011 does not apply in this case, because 1446 grants legislative authority to effect transfers of Points to and from Contests Funds, which is exactly what the first transfer is. Also, Rule 692 does not apply, because 692 deals with trading points between Players, and this transfer was neither to nor from a Player. The last paragraph of 692, which requires that "all Nomic Entities ... abide by the [specified] limits whenever points are traded", does not prevent this transfer, although it does restrict it. The transfer was posted to the Public Forum; and it was for a positive number of points. Clause (d) does not apply because a Contest Fund may not win. Clause (c), however, limits the transfer to the number of Points in the Contest Fund, which at the time of the transfer was 1. Hence, I find that the transfer is legal in principle, but that the size of the transfer is limited to one Point. Rule 1442 attempts to claim precedence, as TAL notes in his Arguments; however, 692 _also_ claims precedence. By Rule 1030, therefore, 692 takes precedence by the numerical method. Since the question placed before me in this CFJ is whether the transfer is legal, I find that it is, in fact, legal. As to the second transfer, I also find that it is legal, although not of the size alleged to by TAL in his message to the Public Forum. One second after TAL entered the Contest, which I find he did, the Contest had no Contestmaster. Hence, it is dissolved by Rule 1442, and its Contest Fund distributed amongst the Contestants, which is to say, TAL. Hence, TAL does receive the entire contents of the Contest Fund: two points. Again, the same argument which limits the size of the first transfer would have applied to limit the size of the second transfer; Rule 692 and Rule 1446 both claim precedence. By Rule 1030, 692 therefore has precedence. It is therefore the finding of this Court that both transfers are legal, and that this CFJ is TRUE. However, it is the nonbinding opinion of this Court that the size of these transfers is misstated in TAL's message to the Public Forum; specifically, the first transfer from Abelian's Treasury to the Scam Contest Fund is of 1 Point, not 300, and the second transfer, from the Scam Contest Fund to TAL is of 2 Points, not 301. Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of April, 1995, Kelly Martin ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Additional evidence: Rule 1030/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Precedence Between Conflicting Rules There are two types of conflicts between rules: (a) conflicts between rules with the same Mutability Indices; (b) conflicts between rules with different Mutability Indices. (a) Conflicts between Rules with the same Mutability Indices: If two or more Rules with the same Mutability Indices conflict with one another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence. If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs. (b) Conflicts between Rules with different Mutability Indices: In a conflict between rules with different Mutability Indices, the rule with the higher Mutability Index takes precedence over the Rule with the lower Mutability Index. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1527, Mar. 24 1995 ====================================================================== Judgement of the pro-Clerk of the Courts: FALSE The first transfer was legal by the loophole in Rule 692 (though modified to 1 Point). The second transfer was not legal since the Scam Contest cannot be dissolved. THE FIRST TRANSFER: ABELIAN GROUP to SCAM CONTEST FUND I accept the argument of Judge Kelly, that the first transfer is legal, though not in the amount claimed. Rule 1446 says that Contest Funds may transfer Points in the same manner as a Player. Rule 692 says that a Player may transfer Points to any other Player, subject to certain limits. It does not say "transfer Points in eir possession." This is the same omission already repaired in the Rule 1040 and Rule 614. We just never thought to repair it in Rule 692. As Judge Kelly points out, this transfer is still subject to the limits imposed by 692(c), and is therefore modified by the last paragraph of Rule 692, and the Contest Fund trades the maximum which would be allowed, namely 1 Point. THE SECOND TRANSFER: SCAM CONTEST FUND to TAL The second transfer is the transfer from Scam Contest Fund to TAL. There is no legal way such a transfer can take place. Rule 1446 permits Regulations to specify how the Contestmaster may be replaced. This is different from saying that they have the power to vacate the Contestmastership. TAL became Contestmaster when he posted the Scam Contest announcement. The Regulations do not specify any way of replacing the Contestmaster, and hence he remains Contestmaster. Since the Contest continues to have a Contestmaster, it does not auto-dissolve under Rule 1446. The Regulations do not specify any other way of dissolving the Contest, and so the Contest is not dissolved. Therefore the disbursal under Rule 1446 does not take place. There is no regulation authorizing the Contest Fund to transfer Points to a Contestant. Rule 1446 says that the Fund may make transfers, but only as authorized by the regulations. Hence the transfer cannot take place, either as a dissolution disbursement, or as an ordinary Contest transfer. --Justice ElJefe ====================================================================== Judgement of the Justiciar: FALSE I Judge that the Statement is FALSE. Justice eljefe has provided convincing and cogent arguments to the effect that the first transfer is legal, though not of the size reported by TAL, but that the second transfer is illegal because the Scam Contest cannot be dissolved. ====================================================================== Judgement of the Speaker: FALSE I judge FALSE for several reasons. First, let me quote a few salient points. >From the Contest Announcement: > 4) Immediately after the one and only participant has paid his fee, > 300 Points shall be transfered from the Abelian Group to the > Scam Contest fund. Since TAL did, undoubtedly, transfer the Entry Fee, Regulation 4 is invoked. The Scam Contest attempts to transfer 300 points from Abelian to the SC Fund. Rule 116, in its entirety: > Rule 116/0 (Semimutable, MI=3) > Permissibility of the Unprohibited > > Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a Rule is permitted > and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the Rules, > which is permitted only when a Rule or set of Rules explicitly or > implicitly permits it. This is often taken to mean that what isn't *prohibited* is legal. But, it must be remembered that *regulation* counts to prevent invocation of 116, too. Selections from Rule 692: > Rule 692/2 (Mutable, MI=1) > Trading Points > > A Player may voluntarily transfer Points to any other Player for > any purpose, within the following limits: > [...] > (c) a Player may not transfer more Points than e currently has > > [...] > > All Nomic Entities shall abide by the above limits whenever > Points are traded. If a Nomic Entity must trade Points by the > current Rules but would end up breaking the above limits, then > the Nomic Entity trades the maximum amount possible without > breaking any of the above limits. This Rule shall have > precedence over all other Rules pertaining to the Trading of > Points. That first sentence is worthless in our case, as it only applies if Points are *traded*, which is two-way. But the rest of the paragraph may be helpful: a Nomic Entity (the SC) must trade by current Rules, but breaks the limits (the Scam Contest owns 0 Points and attempts to transfer 300 Points). So, the NE (the SC) trades the max possible (0) without breaking limits. This Rule, numbered 692, attempts to take Precedence. >From Rule 1011: > Rule 1011/0 (Mutable, MI=1) > Game Entities May Not Be Arbitrarily Changed > > Any Entity which is created by the Nomic Rules, and which exists > only within the context of Agora Nomic (such as Points, Votes, > Currencies and any Official Records) may *not* be changed by any > action other than those specified by the Rules. > [...] It is impossible for this to take effect in the current case, as the Actions taken *are* specified, and regulated. >From Rule 1446: > Rule 1446/0 (Mutable, MI=1) > Contests > > [...] > > The Contest Fund is an entity capable of owning, trading, and > spending Points or Currencies in the same manner as a Player, > but only as authorized by the Regulations. Note, please, that there are *TWO* entities at work here: the Contest, and the Contest Fund. The Scam Contest seems to be the one possessing the Regulations, and the Contest Fund holds the Points--meaning that the Contest can't transfer Points, period, as it doesn't own any (see part c of the Points Transfer Rule). Indeed, there may even be three (the Contest, the CF, and the Regs), depending on your reading of the Rule. > The Regulations specify the operation of the Contest. All > Contestants, and the Contestmaster, are bound by the Regulations > except where these conflict with the Rules. They may also > specify: > - how the Contestmaster is replaced, > - how currencies and Points are transferred to or from the > Contest Fund, The Scam Contest Regulations do specify how currencies are transferred; does this automatically mean these transfers are executed? I assume so, but it's not really explicit, as I think about it. > [...] > > This transfer is not taxable. This Rule takes precedence over > all other Rules which determine which Point and Currency > transfers are legal and/or taxable, or which would assign Blots > to any Player. This Rule, numbered 1011, attempts to take precedence; 692 also does. Therefore 692 wins, and Points are transferred only as according to it. That is to say, not at all. Thus, the transfer of 300 Points is *not* a legal transfer (although the Rules do modify it so that it becomes so). Note that if this Appeal overturns Player Kelly's Judgement in the matter, for reasons very similar to the ones given in eir own Judgement, I do not believe the resultant Point loss should be reported by the CotC; if it is, I will recompense em for eir loss. ===== Vanyel -=-=-=-Don Blaheta-=-=-=-blahedo@quincy.edu-=-=-=-dblaheta@aol.com-=-=-=- War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ketchup is a vegetable. ====================================================================== -- kelly martin I have been told that when a large group of people believe in a fantasy, it is called a culture. When a small group believes, it is called a cult. When two people believe in a fantasy, it is called love; and when one person believes, it is called psychosis. From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Tue Apr 11 00:36:00 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id AAA06420 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 1995 00:35:58 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id WAA03750 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 22:33:18 -0700 Received: from mizar.astro.indiana.edu (mizar.astro.indiana.edu [129.79.160.43]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA03710 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 22:33:07 -0700 Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0ryYZV-0001YDC; Tue, 11 Apr 95 00:33 EST Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga) id <2nwp@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Tue, 11 Apr 95 00:14:24 EST5 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 95 00:14:24 EST5 Message-Id: <9504110514.2nwp@poverty.bloomington.in.us> From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin) To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: CFJ761: Judgement Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 761 (Rule 692's correct interpretation prohibits Points...) ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Judge: TAL Eligible to Judge: Andre, Blob, Coren, Dave Bowen, Chuck, Elde, elJefe, Jeffrey, Kelly, Michael, Pascal, Steve, Swann, TAL, Vanyel, Xanadu Judge: Vlad, defaulted by going on Hold Eligible to Judge: Andre, Blob, Coren, Dave Bowen, Chuck, Elde, elJefe, Jeffrey, Kelly, Michael, Oerjan, Pascal, Steve, Swann, TAL, Vanyel, Vlad, Xanadu Caller: KoJen Scorekeepor: Vlad loses 2 Points for going on Hold while appointed as a Judge TAL receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called Wed, 5 Apr 95 15:00:20 -0400 by KoJen Assigned Wed, 5 Apr 1995 19:45 UTC to Vlad Defaulted Sun, 9 Apr 1995 19:01 UTC by Vlad --> Vlad loses 2 Points Reassigned Mon, 10 Apr 1995 15:40 UTC to TAL Judged FALSE Tue, 11 Apr 95 02:29:19 SET by TAL --> TAL receives 5 Points ====================================================================== Statement: I hereby Call For Judgement on the intreptation of Rule 692. The correct interpretation prohibits Points from being transferred from a Player who is not the Player requesting the transfer. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments & References: Rule 692 is as follows: Rule 692/2 (Mutable, MI=1) Trading Points A Player may voluntarily transfer Points to any other Player for any purpose, within the following limits: (a) the transfer must be posted to the Public Forum (b) a Player may only transfer a positive number of Points (c) a Player may not transfer more Points than e currently has (d) a Player may not transfer Points if the recipient has more than than 90% of the Points required to Win, or would pass this limit as a result of the transfer. If any agreement among Players includes any transfer of Points between two Players then each such transfer shall be in accordance with the above. But this Rule shall not be construed as having any bearing on the legality or legal enforceability of any terms of said agreement which do not involve such a transfer. All Nomic Entities shall abide by the above limits whenever Points are traded. If a Nomic Entity must trade Points by the current Rules but would end up breaking the above limits, then the Nomic Entity trades the maximum amount possible without breaking any of the above limits. This Rule shall have precedence over all other Rules pertaining to the Trading of Points. In the absence of any specified "from" in the first sentence, and in the absence of any special meaning for "transfer" defined in Agora, this can only be taken to mean a transfer from the Entity requesting the transfer. Long estabilished Game custom is consistent with this. ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Arguments: "A Player may voluntarily transfer Points to any other Player for any purpose, within the following limits.." (Rule 692) does, in general, not prohibit the transfer of points from another Player than the Player who is doing the transfer. Here is the dictionary definition: trans.fer \'trans-.f*r\ n 1: conveyance of right, title, or interest in property from one person to another 2: an act or process of transferring 3: one that transfers or is transferred 4: a ticket entitling a passenger on a public conveyance to continue his journey on another route It seems that 1) applies to the `transfer' mentioned in Rule 692. However, KoJen appealed to Game Custom to justify the Statement. As far as I know, no Player to Player transfers were ever made other than from a Player A to a Player B, requested by A. But I don't think that the lack of such transfers would therefore exclude them. I, for instance, never made a point transfer from myself to Elde, but I don't think that this implies therefore that such transfers are excluded by Game Custom. An other argument is that such `irregular' transfers were at one time allowed for Marks. And although it took awhile before somebody did so, eventually it did happen. Nor does the Spirit of the Game exclude such point transfers. If anything, the S of the G would *encourage* such transfers. Conclusion: the type of transfers mentioned in the Statement are not prohibited and therefore allowed by 116 (no doubt our most frequently invoked Rule.) Note: this Judgment is a licence for theft. Any Player who wants to win a game and who doesn't care to become an Honourless Worm in the mean time, can go ahead. But be quick about it, a cure of 692 is in the works. References: Rule 116/0 (Semimutable, MI=3) Permissibility of the Unprohibited Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a Rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the Rules, which is permitted only when a Rule or set of Rules explicitly or implicitly permits it. Rule 692/2 (Mutable, MI=1) Trading Points A Player may voluntarily transfer Points to any other Player for any purpose, within the following limits: (a) the transfer must be posted to the Public Forum (b) a Player may only transfer a positive number of Points (c) a Player may not transfer more Points than e currently has (d) a Player may not transfer Points if the recipient has more than than 90% of the Points required to Win, or would pass this limit as a result of the transfer. If any agreement among Players includes any transfer of Points between two Players then each such transfer shall be in accordance with the above. But this Rule shall not be construed as having any bearing on the legality or legal enforceability of any terms of said agreement which do not involve such a transfer. All Nomic Entities shall abide by the above limits whenever Points are traded. If a Nomic Entity must trade Points by the current Rules but would end up breaking the above limits, then the Nomic Entity trades the maximum amount possible without breaking any of the above limits. This Rule shall have precedence over all other Rules pertaining to the Trading of Points. ==== Greetings, TAL ====================================================================== -- kelly martin I have been told that when a large group of people believe in a fantasy, it is called a culture. When a small group believes, it is called a cult. When two people believe in a fantasy, it is called love; and when one person believes, it is called psychosis. From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Thu May 11 18:58:57 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id SAA02656 for ; Thu, 11 May 1995 18:58:39 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id QAA02229 for nomic-official-outgoing; Thu, 11 May 1995 16:57:48 -0700 Received: from mizar.astro.indiana.edu (mizar.astro.indiana.edu [129.79.160.43]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA02212 for ; Thu, 11 May 1995 16:57:42 -0700 Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0s9i6s-0001bMC; Thu, 11 May 95 18:57 EST Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga) id <2zzh@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Thu, 11 May 95 18:00:47 EST5 Date: Thu, 11 May 95 18:00:47 EST5 Message-Id: <9505112300.2zzh@poverty.bloomington.in.us> From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin) To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: CFJ762: Final Judgement Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== FINAL JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 762 (As only those Directives which are defined...) ====================================================================== Final Judgement: FALSE Judgement of the Clerk of the Courts: FALSE Judgement of the Justiciar: FALSE Judgement of the Speaker: FALSE Replacement for CotC: Swann Replecement for Speaker: Andre Clerk of the Courts: Kelly, defaulted Justiciar: Steve Speaker: Vanyel, defaulted Judgement: TRUE Judge: Blob Eligible to Judge: Andre, Blob, Dave Bowen, Chuck, Elde, elJefe, Jeffrey, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Pascal, Steve, Swann, Vanyel, Vlad, Xanadu Judge: Coren, defaulted Eligible to Judge: Andre, Blob, Coren, Dave Bowen, Chuck, Elde, elJefe, Jeffrey, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Oerjan, Pascal, Steve, Swann, Vanyel, Vlad, Xanadu Caller: TAL Scorekeepor: Coren loses 10 Points for defaulting Judgement Blob receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement Steve receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement Kelly loses 10 Points for defaulting Appelate Judgement Vanyel loses 10 Points for defaulting Appelate Judgement Swann receives 3 Points for timely Judgement Andre receives 3 Points for timely Judgement Blob surrenders 5 Points for being overturned ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called Fri, 07 Apr 95 18:16:57 SET by TAL Assigned Sat, 08 Apr 1995 14:55 UTC to Coren Defaulted Sat, 15 Apr 1995 14:55 UTC by Coren --> Coren loses 10 Points Reassigned Sun, 16 Apr 1995 06:30 UTC to Blob Judged TRUE Wed, 19 Apr 1995 12:51:10 +1000 (EST) by Blob --> Blob receives 5 Points Appealed Mon, 24 Apr 95 17:01:51 METDST by Andre Appealed Mon, 24 Apr 95 11:37:16 EDT by elJefe Appealed Mon, 24 Apr 95 11:09:46 -0400 by KoJen Assigned Mon, 24 Apr 1995 17:00 UTC to Steve as Justiciar Assigned Mon, 24 Apr 1995 17:00 UTC to Kelly as CotC Assigned Mon, 24 Apr 1995 17:00 UTC to Vanyel as Speaker Judged FALSE Tue, 25 Apr 1995 16:12:00 +1000 (EST) by Steve --> Steve receives 5 Points Defaulted Mon, 1 Apr 1995 17:00 UTC by Kelly --> Kelly loses 10 Points Defaulted Mon, 1 Apr 1995 17:00 UTC by Vanyel --> Vanyel loses 10 Points Reassigned to Swann Thu, 4 May 1995 03:25 UTC as pro-CotC Reassigned to Andre Thu, 4 May 1995 03:25 UTC as pro-Speaker Judged FALSE Tue, 9 May 1995 05:52:37 -0400 by Swann --> Swann receives 3 Points Judged FALSE Wed, 10 May 95 12:45:35 METDST by Andre --> Andre receives 3 Points --> Blob loses 5 Points ====================================================================== Statement: "As only those Directives which are defined by the Rules may be placed in a Proposal, obviously the paragraphs >Directive I: >"Coren shall be dismissed as Sweepstake Officer." > >Directive II: >"The Player being currently the Banker, shall be dismissed." are not part of Proposal 1543." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: Proposal 1543 seemingly contains two Directives. However these socalled Directives (quoted in the statement) are of a type that is not defined in the Rules. By Rule 993 they may therefore not be placed in a Proposal. Consequently they are not part of the Proposal. (Maybe they were commentary? A sort of Statement of Intent?) Note: the real 1543, the part that should be voted upon is >Proposal 1543 (TAL) Short >Adoption Index: 1 > >Directives to abolish Offices. > >Amend Rule 1006 by adding at its end: >"When an Office no longer exist, a Directive to dismiss the Officer > may be proposed." > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- References: Proposal 1543 as distributed. Rule 993 Proposal 1543 (TAL) Short Adoption Index: 1 Directives to abolish Offices. Amend Rule 1006 by adding at its end: "When an Office no longer exist, a Directive to dismiss the Officer may be proposed." Directive I: "Coren shall be dismissed as Sweepstake Officer." Directive II: "The Player being currently the Banker, shall be dismissed." Rule 993/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Directives A Proposal may contain one or more Directives. A Directive, if adopted, causes some change in the Game State other than changing a Rule. No Directive may change any Rule. Only those Directives which are defined by the Rules may be placed in a Proposal. If a Proposal containing Directives is adopted, the Directives shall take effect in the order that they appear in the Proposal, and according to the Rule or Rule which define the type of each Directive in question. The Adoption Index of a Proposal containing a Directive must be at least as great as that required by the Rule or Rules which define the type of Directive contained in the Proposal. Any Proposal for which this is not true is not properly made. ====================================================================== Judgement: TRUE Argument: It is my opinion that there are no such thing as "Directives which are not defined by the rules", as the only reasonable way to find out whether something is a Directive is to look at the definition of "Directive". And it is game custom to let definitions in the rules take precedence over everyday defintions. So, as Directives are defined in the rules, we have to use these definitions to judge whether or not something is a Directive. And as the two lines labelled "Directive I" and "Directive II" do not fit into this definition (or at least, did not at the time the proposal was made), we must assume they are NOT Directives. It appears to me that these lines do not fall under any of the other required or permitted parts of a Proposal as defined in the rules, so it is game custom to assume that they are comments. As to whether these comments are part of the proposal, it appears to also be game custom that any text included with a proposal, which could not affect the game state (if the prop passed) is regarded as "not part of the proposal". Take, for example rule 597/1. Therefore, it seems clear to me that the text quoted in the Statement, although it was included with proposal 1543, and may be distributed with it, was not part of the proposal. Additional Evidence: Rule 597/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Titles for Proposals Every Proposal shall be headed with a Title. This Title shall not actually be a part of the Proposal itself and therefore shall not become a part of any Rule Enacted or Amended by that Proposal. If a Proposal is not headed with a Title, then the proposal is not properly submitted, and shall not be Voted upon. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1327, Nov. 22 1994 -- Malcolm Ryan - Honours Comp Sci at UNSW, Australia Email: malcolmr@cse.unsw.edu.au WWW: http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~malcolmr/ "It means nothing - and nothing is quite what it seems." - BOOJUM! ====================================================================== Judgement of the Justiciar: FALSE I overturn Judge Blob's initial Judgement, and Judge that the Statement is FALSE. It appears to me that the truth of the Statement depends upon the answers to two different questions. As we shall see, I think that only the first of these questions is really important; the answer to the second question, while affecting whether we say that the Statement is TRUE or FALSE, is perhaps as much a matter of taste as anything else. The important question raised by the Statement is: did Proposal 1543 contain any Directives at all? In this matter I think that Blob Judged correctly that it did not. It is worth repeating here in this Official context my belief that there are not two kinds of Directives, those defined by the Rules and those not defined by the Rules. Rather, as Blob argued, the Rules define what is a Directive, and anything not satisfying this definition is no kind of Directive at all. Neither of the text fragments in Proposal 1543 which purport to be Directives satisfy this definition, and so neither of these fragments can be held to be Directives. So Proposal 1543 did not contain any Directives. The second question now arises: if Proposal 1543 did not contain any Directives, then what exactly did it contain? Specifically, did it contain any text fragments purporting to be Directives? Blob in his Judgement argued that "these lines do not fall under any of the other required or permitted parts of a Proposal as defined in the rules, so it is game custom to assume that they are comments", and he goes on to argue from this that it is "game custom that any text included with a proposal, which could not affect the game state...is regarded as 'not part of the proposal'." He gives the example of Titles (Rule 597). I think this is a questionable line of argument. Firstly, the Rules are fairly permissive in their approach to what may be contained in a Proposal. Basically we are told that a Proposal may contain Rule Changes (Rule 594) and Directives (Rule 993). But we are never told that Proposals may not contain anything which is neither a Rule Change nor a Directive. But secondly, I don't think game custom is as clear on the matter of whether comments are regarded as part of a proposal as Judge Blob would have it be. True, we are told that Titles are not part of a Proposal, but I think it would be a mistake to generalize from the special case of Titles to the more general case of comments. For example, there is the occasional habit of some Players of including, along with proposed amendments and creations, requests to the Rulekeepor to give the newly created or amended Rule a particular Title. These requests have no legal force, of course, but I think it would be awkward if we were to regard them as not part of the Proposals in which they (apparently) appear, particularly as they may be gramatically intertwined with sentences specifying the nature of a Rule Change that the Proposal is proposing. If one was to state this as a general principle, it would be this: that it is better to allow Proposals to come in easily identified chunks, without having to worry about which parts of the chunk are really a part of the Proposal and which are not, and to allow some parts of the Proposal to be passive and without any legal effects, than it is to require that only those parts of a document submitted as a Proposal, which will, if adopted, have some legal effect, are to be considered a part of that Proposal. The latter alternative seems complicated and distasteful to me, and contrary to commonsense. It is therefore my Judgement that while Proposal 1543 contained no Directives, it did contain text fragments which purported to be Directives, and hence that the Statement is FALSE. Steve Gardner | "Justice? You get justice in the next Dept. of Philosophy, Monash Uni. | world, in this world you get the law." gardner@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au | -- William Gaddis -- ====================================================================== Judgement of the Clerk of the Courts: FALSE Arguments: I concur with Blob insofar as it is evident that there can not be such a thing as a "Directive which is not defined by the rules." I also concur that, as Blob argued, the lines of the Proposal in question, labelled "Directive I" and "Directive II" can not be Directives, because no such "Directives" are defined in the Rules. I will not go into that argument again, since that ground is well trod, and now seems generally agreed upon. The question then falls, is the remainder of Blob's argument valid? Specifically, the following 2 paragraphs: "It appears to me that these lines do not fall under any of the other required or permitted parts of a Proposal as defined in the rules, so it is game custom to assume that they are comments. As to whether these comments are part of the proposal, it appears to also be game custom that any text included with a proposal, which could not affect the game state (if the prop passed) is regarded as "not part of the proposal". Take, for example rule 597/1." Hmmmm. I have scrounged through the Ruleset, and I have actually found nothing that really defines the "required or permitted" part of a Proposal. There are rules that define how a Proposal is submitted (Rule 1036/2) and what text is required to be attached (Rule 597/1) but nothing that limits the content of Proposals themselves. Now there are explicit limits on the content and form of Directives and of Rule Changes and up until recently there has been a de-facto limit on the number of Rule Creations a Proposal could contain because of the form of Rule Numbering, which has since been decoupled from Proposal numbering... all of these are indirect limits. There is no Rule that someone can not submit a Proposal as follows: "Proposal 9999 This Text is a Proposal This Proposal contains no Rule Changes or Directives." This Proposal obviously contains some text (or else it wouldn't exist.) But by Blob's reasoning, since this text does not change the Game state, it is not part of the Proposal. This, I think, is wrong-- As a counterexample to Blob's mentioning of Proposal Titles, which Rule 597/1 explicitly states are not part of a Proposal, (making 597/1 an invalid example of how extraneous text is treated) I offer a careful examination of 1339/2 which shows that such declarations as in the example above are more often than not treated as part of the Proposal. In 1339/2, the lines and declarations that preface the text of a Rule Change are, themselves, implicitly part of that Rule Change and thus part of a proposal that contains the Rule Change. Example from 1339/2: "Any Rule Change which affects an existing Rule must clearly identify the Number of the Rule to be affected." Thus in the following example: "Proposal 9999 A Pointless Amendment. Amend Rule 1339/2 by adding the following text: "fnord."" The line contenting the Number of the Amended Rule is part of the Rule Change, and part of the Proposal. (Otherwise, the "Rule Change" cannot be clearly identifying the Number of the Rule being Amended, as 1339/2 requires.) The Title, "A Pointless Amendment" is *only* excluded from being part of the Proposal by the specific language of Rule 597/2. There is nothing similar to the language of Rule 1339/2 to define the status of the declarations prefacing Directives. However, I believe that both Logic and Game Custom are contrary to Blob's argument. I maintain that if in this: "Proposal 9999 Create Nothing. Let the following rule be Created (and placed in the Category "Nada"): "This rule does nothing, and takes precedence over any rule that demands it to do anything."" the sentence "Let the following . ." is part of the Proposal (which it clearly *is* via the sixth paragraph of 1339/2) then, in the following example: "Proposal 9999 A Legal Directive. Directive I: The Player who is now holding the Office of Herald is hereby replaced by Swann." the sentence "Directive I:" is likewise part of the Proposal. And, following the same logic, if in this: "Proposal 9999 Illegally Does Nothing. Amend Rule 1339/2 by deleting the word "fnord."" the sentence is part of the Proposal, even if the Proposal has no effect (there being no word "fnord" to be deleted) then in this: "Proposal 1543 (TAL) Short Adoption Index: 1 Directives to abolish Offices. Amend Rule 1006 by adding at its end: "When an Office no longer exist, a Directive to dismiss the Officer may be proposed." Directive I: "Coren shall be dismissed as Sweepstake Officer." Directive II: "The Player being currently the Banker, shall be dismissed."" at the very least, the sentences "Directive I:" and "Directive II:" are part of the Proposal. The text those lines refer to, are not, however, Directives. Now, Rule 993/1 says that only Directives defined by the Rules may be placed in a Proposal. However I, as well as the majority of Judicial opinion, maintain that the only kind of Directive that exist are those defined within the Rules. There is no such thing as an illegal or undefined Directive, there are only Directives, and non-Directives. The text in question is obviously the latter. I also think that it is clear that extraneous text *does* in fact become part of a Proposal, but Game Custom is that such text has no effect when the Rules do not give a meaning to such text. This is the case in TAL's proposal, the fact that the text did not contain Directives, as defined by the Rules, did not exclude these sentences from being part of a Proposal, just as Amendments to non-existent parts of a Rule do not exclude themselves from their Proposals. The Statement, as worded, is FALSE. References: ---------------------------------------- Rule 1339/2 (Semimutable, MI=3) Rule Changes There are two types of Rule Change. A Proposed Rule Change is a Rule Change which appears in a Proposal, and which, insofar as the Rules permit it to take effect, has the effect of Creating, Amending, Mutating, Repealing or otherwise changing a Rule as defined elsewhere in the Rules, directly as a result of the passage of a Proposal. A non-Proposed Rule Change has the same effect as a Proposed Rule Change, but insofar as the Rules permit it to take effect, it does so not as the direct result of the passage of a Proposal, but rather, indirectly, as the result of the effect or action of a Rule. All Rule Changes, of either type, are subject to the following constraints: An individual Rule Change must change exactly one Rule. Any Rule Change which affects an existing Rule must clearly identify the Number of the Rule to be affected. Any Rule Change which creates a New Rule may specify the Mutability Index of the New Rule; however, if the Mutability Index is specified it must be greater than or equal to 1. If the Mutability Index of any Rule created by a Rule Change is not specified, it shall be 1. Any Rule Change which creates a New Rule may specify the Category to which the New Rule will be assigned. If the Category specified exists, the Rule shall be assigned to that Category. If the Category specified does not exist, or no Category is specified, the Rulekeepor shall assign the Rule to an appropriate category of eir own choice. Any Rule Change which changes the Mutability Index of a Rule must clearly specify the new value of the Rule's Mutability Index. Any Rule Change which changes the text of a Rule must clearly and unambigiously specify the changes which are to be made. If the Rule Change quotes old text which is to be replaced with new text, then the quoted old text must match exactly with actual text in the Rule, with the exception of whitespace and capitalization. This takes precedence over Rules which would permit such differences, even if the differences would be considered inconsequential by such Rules. Any Rule Change which does not meet these criteria shall not have any legal force. History: Created by Proposal 1339, Nov. 29 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 1414, Feb. 1 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1440, Feb. 21 1995 Mutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 1532, Mar. 24 1995 ---------------------------------------- -- Steven Swiniarski (aka S Andrew Swann) gb485@cleveland.freenet.edu Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship. --Harry S Truman ====================================================================== Judgement of the Speaker: FALSE I overturn the judgement to be FALSE. I think I can be short in stating my point, as I agree with Steve (one could also say that Steve agrees with me, as I had already stated this point of view in my Call for Appeal). I agree with the caller that the would-be Directives are NOT of any form of Directive allowed by the rules, and therefore are NOT Directives. However, in spite of what the caller and the Judge said, and in agreement with the Justiciar, I judge that Game Custom tells us that Proposals may contain parts which are neither Rule Changes nor Directives, even though such parts have no legal force. The main example has already been given by Steve, namely remarks regarding the (unofficial) titles of Rules. Another example might be the fact that, if not now then sometime in the past, the text of the thesis was part of the proposal to request a Degree. There are some things which are considered to be NOT part of a Proposal, but these are exceptions, either entrenched in the Rule (Titles), or through Game Custom (Commentary). The normal way is that anything contained in a Proposal is indeed part of the Proposal. Andre P.S.: Isn't it a strange coincidence that the randomly chosen pro-Speaker was the Speaker-elect (and now even Speaker)? [[CotC's note: it was entirely coincidental. my HP48GX makes all judicial selections.]] ====================================================================== From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Thu Apr 13 17:18:19 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id RAA29060 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 1995 17:18:16 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id PAA22582 for nomic-official-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 1995 15:13:15 -0700 Received: from mizar.astro.indiana.edu (mizar.astro.indiana.edu [129.79.160.43]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA22548 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 1995 15:13:03 -0700 Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0rzX8H-0001VIC; Thu, 13 Apr 95 17:13 EST Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga) id <2pc9@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Thu, 13 Apr 95 17:05:14 EST5 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 95 17:05:14 EST5 Message-Id: <9504132205.2pc9@poverty.bloomington.in.us> From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin) To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: CFJ763: Judgement Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 763 (The correct interpretation of 1443 is, that...) ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Judge: Dave Bowen Eligible to Judge: Blob, Coren, Dave Bowen, Chuck, Elde, elJefe, Jeffrey, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Pascal, Steve, Swann, Vanyel, Xanadu Caller: TAL Scorekeepor: Dave Bowen receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called Tue, 11 Apr 95 04:00:55 SET Assigned Tue, 11 Apr 1995 05:45 UTC to Dave Bowen Judged FALSE Tue, 11 Apr 1995 10:18:54 -0500 by Dave Bowen --> Dave Bowen receives 5 Points ====================================================================== Statement: "The correct interpretation of 1443 is, that any Player who submits a Proposal that passes and who has posted *any* proto-PROPOSAL to the Public Forum within the given time limits, receives two points." Barred Player: Andre ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: 1443 states that "A proposal which passes, and which was proto-proposed in the same *form*" earns its submitter two points. Well, what is the form of a proto-Proposal? It can not mean `exactly the same' as that is contradictory to the usual meaning of the word `form': form \'fo_.rm\ n 1: SHAPE, STRUCTURE 2: a body esp. of a person : FIGURE 3: the essential nature of a thing 4: established manner of doing a thing or saying something 5: FORMULA 6: a printed or typed document with blank spaces for insertion of requested information 7: CEREMONY, CONVENTIONALITY 8: manner or style of performing according to recognized standards 9: a long seat : BENCH 10: a frame model of the human figure used for displaying clothes 11: MOLD 12: type or plates in a frame ready for printing 13: MODE, KIND, VARIETY 14: orderly method of arrangement; also : a particular kind or instance of such arrangement 15: the structural element, plan, or design of a work of art 16: a bounded surface or volume 17: a grade in a British secondary school or in some American private schools 18: a table with information on the past performances of racehorses 19: known ability to perform; also : condition (as of an athlete) suitable for performing 20: one of the ways in which a word is changed to show difference in use So the question is, when was a Proposal submitted in the same form as the proto? This can only be so, when the proto obeyed the same Rules concerning the form as the Proposals. No more. Specifically, nothing is said about the similarity in *content* of proto and Proposal. Therefore *any* proto posted to the Public Forum within the given time limit would seem to fulfill that requirement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- References: Rule 1443/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Bonus for Proto-Proposing A Proposal may be proto-Proposed by sending it to the Public Forum and identifying it as a proto-Proposal. A proposal which passes, and which was proto-proposed in the same form between four and fourteen days before being submitted as a proposal, shall earn its proposer an extra two points at the end of the voting period. ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Explanation: As a noted U.S. Supreme Court Justice (Brennan, I think) commented about pornography, "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it.", so it is in this case. TAL's suggestion that same form means any proto-proposal at all is totaly specious (bovine excrement might be a better term). Like the good Justice I will not attempt to give a complete definition of "being in the same form". I think that the majority of the Players are quite capable of recognizing it when they see it. ====================================================================== -- kelly martin I have been told that when a large group of people believe in a fantasy, it is called a culture. When a small group believes, it is called a cult. When two people believe in a fantasy, it is called love; and when one person believes, it is called psychosis. From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Tue Apr 18 00:34:31 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id AAA21945 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 00:34:29 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id WAA13964 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 1995 22:33:06 -0700 Received: from mizar.astro.indiana.edu (mizar.astro.indiana.edu [129.79.160.43]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA13958 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 1995 22:33:03 -0700 Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0s15uH-0001YBC; Tue, 18 Apr 95 00:33 EST Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga) id <2qdg@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Tue, 18 Apr 95 00:04:29 EST5 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 95 00:04:29 EST5 Message-Id: <9504180504.2qdg@poverty.bloomington.in.us> From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin) To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: CFJ764: Judgement Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 764 (Rule 113 can only be interpreted such that...) ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Judge: Michael Eligible to Judge: Andre, Blob, Coren, Dave Bowen, Chuck, Elde, Jeffrey, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Pascal, Steve, Swann, Vanyel, Xanadu Caller: TAL Scorekeepor: Michael receives 3 Points for timely Judgement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called Wed, 12 Apr 95 00:19:28 SET by TAL Assigned Wed, 12 Apr 1995 00:50 UTC to Michael Judged FALSE Mon, 17 Apr 95 16:22:29 BST by Michael --> Michael receives 3 Points ====================================================================== Statement: "Rule 113 can only be interpreted such that regulation 6 of ElJefe's `No More Contests' Contest is in conflict with it." Barred Players: ElJefe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: Rule 113 states: "No penalty worse than deregistration [...] may be imposed.". Well, Regulation 6 of the NMC Contest imposes *two* penalties on recidivists. There is: Anyone becoming Contestmaster via Reg. 5 must within one hour both go On Hold, and transfer all eir currencies and Points to the Contest Fund. E may not come Off Hold until this Contest is dissolved. and there is: Anyone becoming Contestmaster for the second time via Reg. 5 must immediately forfeit the game of Agora Nomic. Therefore, anyone becoming Contestmaster for the second time looses all eir Agoran possessions *and* must forfeit. Obviously, imposing forfeiture *and* confiscation is a penalty worse than imposing forfeiture alone. Hence Reg. 6 is in violation of 113 and by 1446 Contestants are not bound by it. Consequently the Contestmaster of the NMC Contest, i.e. TAL, is not bound by Regulation 6. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- References (two Rules and the NMC Regulations): Rule 113/1 (Semimutable, MI=3) Players May Always Forfeit A Player may always deregister from the Game rather than continue to play or incur a Game penalty. No penalty worse than deregistration, in the judgment of the Player to incur it, may be imposed. Rule 1446/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Contests A contest is a subgame of Agora Nomic, having its own Name, Entry Fee, Regulations, Contestmaster, and Contest Fund. It is created when a Player posts to the Public Forum an announcement of the contest, including the Name and Regulations. Participants in the subgame are called Contestants of that contest. The player making the post becomes the Contestmaster. The Contestmaster for a given Contest is a Player who has responsibility for administering the subgame. He reports all score changes and currency transfers taking place under the Regulations, administers the Contest Fund, and maintains the Regulations. The Contest Fund is an entity capable of owning, trading, and spending Points or Currencies in the same manner as a Player, but only as authorized by the Regulations. The Regulations specify the operation of the Contest. All Contestants, and the Contestmaster, are bound by the Regulations except where these conflict with the Rules. They may also specify: - how the Contestmaster is replaced, - how currencies and Points are transferred to or from the Contest Fund, - the amount of the Entry Fee for the Contest, which shall be in Points, - additional restrictions on Players to become Contestants, - how the Regulations may be changed, and - ways for the Contest to be dissolved. A Player becomes a Contestant by notifying the Contestmaster and paying the prescribed Entry Fee to the Contest Fund. A Contestant may quit a Contest at any time by so notifying the Contestmaster, or by so posting to the Public Forum. A contest is dissolved when there is no Contestmaster and no provision for replacing em, or as otherwise provided in the rules, or in the Regulations. When this happens the Contest Fund is distributed as provided in the Regulations; if no provision is made the Fund is divided equally between the Contestants. If according to the Regulations the Contest Fund must transfer Points and/or currency to a Contestant, and the Fund does not have sufficient resources, then enough of the Contestmaster's Points and/or currency are transferred to the Fund to cover the transaction. If e does not have sufficient Points or currency to accomplish this, then each Contestant is given back eir entry fee, and the Contestmaster loses the number of Points of the returned entry fees. The Contest is then dissolved. No Blots shall be assigned by this Rule. This transfer is not taxable. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules which determine which Point and Currency transfers are legal and/or taxable, or which would assign Blots to any Player. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONTEST --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This announcement creates a contest, named "No More Contests", whose Regulations are as follows: Reg. 1: The contestmaster is elJefe. Reg. 2: Immediately after this Contest is created, elJefe is replaced as Contestmaster by Troublemaker at Large. Reg. 3: The Contestmaster may not create any Contests. E must, if possible, dissolve any other Contest in which e is Contestmaster. E may not transfer any points to or from other Contest Funds. Reg. 4: If the Contestmaster is deregistered or forfeits from Agora Nomic, the most recent Contestmaster still registered becomes Contestmaster once again. Reg. 5: In case any player legally creates a Contest, that player replaces the current Contestmaster, and becomes the new Contestmaster. Reg. 6: Anyone becoming Contestmaster via Reg. 5 must within one hour both go On Hold, and transfer all eir currencies and Points to the Contest Fund. E may not come Off Hold until this Contest is dissolved. Anyone becoming Contestmaster for the second time via Reg. 5 must immediately forfeit the game of Agora Nomic. Reg. 7: The Contest is dissolved when Player elJefe posts a message so announcing to the Public Forum. Reg. 8: If the Contest is dissolved, the Contest Fund is distributed to the Wanderers Contest Fund. Reg. 9: The Entry fee is 1000 Points. ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE The text of 113 admits a different interpretation from the one required of it by the statement of the CFJ. In particular, it admits the following interpretation: 113 consists of two sentences. The first states that a player may always forfeit rather than suffer a game penalty. The second states that no penalty worse than deregistration may be imposed. The statement's error is to take the second sentence in isolation from the first. In this Judge's interpretation, it is clear that the second sentence of 113 is a consequence of the first; not independent. The second sentence is simply reiterating that a Player may choose to forfeit, thereby exempting them from the Game penalty. The second sentence is tautologically true, given the first. Having demonstrated that there is another interpretation of 113, one which does not conflict with regulation 6 of ElJefe's `No More Contests' Contest, I am free to finish my Judgement (note the unfortunate use of the word "only" in the Statement). However, I should like to point out that this matter has been debated before, and that the interpretation of 113 that the Statement calls for would lead to a ridiculous situation. The careful ellipsis of the words "in the judgement of the Player to incur it" from the Statement conceals the danger inherent in this interpretation. If we were to allow the second sentence of 113 independence from the first (in an entirely separate rule perhaps), a Player could simply claim that any penalty they might be about to incur was worse than deregistration, and thereby avoid it entirely (with the backing of an MI=3 Rule no less). Game custom and common sense make it clear that this interpretation was never intended by the author of the rule, and so it is clear that another interpretation (I provide one above) must govern. ====================================================================== -- kelly martin I have been told that when a large group of people believe in a fantasy, it is called a culture. When a small group believes, it is called a cult. When two people believe in a fantasy, it is called love; and when one person believes, it is called psychosis. From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Mon Apr 24 12:33:42 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id MAA00360 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 12:33:36 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id JAA22209 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 09:05:47 -0700 Received: from mizar.astro.indiana.edu (mizar.astro.indiana.edu [129.79.160.43]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA22185 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 09:05:39 -0700 Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0s3QdZ-0001YEC; Mon, 24 Apr 95 11:05 EST Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga) id <2so9@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Mon, 24 Apr 95 10:49:52 EST5 Date: Mon, 24 Apr 95 10:49:52 EST5 Message-Id: <9504241549.2so9@poverty.bloomington.in.us> From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin) To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: CFJ765: Judgement Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 765 (Swann violated Rule 1446 by not transfering all his points...) ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Judge: Swann Eligible to Judge: Andre, Blob, Dave Bowen, Chuck, Elde, elJefe, Jeffrey, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Pascal, Steve, Swann, Vanyel, Xanadu, Oerjan Judge: Coren, declined Eligible to Judge: Andre, Blob, Coren, Dave Bowen, Chuck, Elde, elJefe, Jeffrey, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Pascal, Steve, Swann, Vanyel, Xanadu Caller: TAL Scorekeepor: Coren loses two points for declining, one of which goes to Kelly. Swann receives 3 Points for timely Judgement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called Wed, 12 Apr 95 07:25:23 SET by TAL Assigned Wed, 12 Apr 1995 15:20 UTC to Coren Declined Tue, 18 Apr 1995 07:50:29 -0700 (PDT) by Coren --> Coren loses 2 Points --> Kelly receives 1 Point Reassigned Tue, 18 Apr 1995 18:40 UTC to Swann Judged FALSE Mon, 24 Apr 1995 06:46:41 -0400 by Swann --> Swann receives 3 Points ====================================================================== Statement: "Swann violated Rule 1446 by not transfering all his points and Currencies to the No More Contests Contest Fund and by not going On Hold within an hour after creating his own revengeful Contest." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: The Contestmaster of a Contest has to obey the Regulations of that Contest, according to Rule 1446. By creating a Contest with the name of `Revenge for TAL' in the message with datestamp Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 04:04:15 -0400 Swann became the Contestmaster of the No More Contests Contest, according to its Regulation 5: Reg. 5: In case any player legally creates a Contest, that player replaces the current Contestmaster, and becomes the new Contestmaster. But Regulation 6 stipulates: Reg. 6: Anyone becoming Contestmaster via Reg. 5 must within one hour both go On Hold, and transfer all eir currencies and Points to the Contest Fund. As Swann did not made this transfer, nor went On Hold, he is violating Rule 1446, that states that Regulations must be obeyed by Contest masters. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Requested Injunction: I request that the Judge, if e agrees with my Statement, issues Injunctions to the effect that 1) Swann's Formal Apology includes 10 Prescribed Words. I propose the following ten words: I, shall, not, create, Contests, before, reading, all, my, mail 2) the illegal Moves of *not* going On Hold and *not* transfering all currencies to the NMC Contest Fund are retracted; and that the Game State is adjusted such that - Swann is On Hold - he holds no points and no currencies - said points and currencies are held by the NMC Contest Fund ---------------------------------------------------------------------- References (Rule 665, 908, 1446; the message to the Forum creating the Revenge for TAL Contest; the regulations of the NMC Contest) Rule 665/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Injuction--Retracting an Illegal Move If a CFJ alleges that a specific Move is illegal, and the Judgement supports the allegation, the Judge may include with the Judgement an Injunction specifying that the move is to be retracted, and any resulting adjustments to the published game state. The adjustments to the game state must have been unambiguously specified within the CFJ, and these adjustments must only undo actions which were a direct or indirect result of that Move. Rule 908/3 (Mutable, MI=1) Formal Apologies If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Ninny must submit to the Public Forum a Formal Apology within 72 hours of the publication of Judgement, unless that Judgement is successfully appealed within 72 hours. By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words, con-taining all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed) ex-plaining the Ninny's error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. A Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge's choice, and ordering that the Ninny's Formal Apology must include the Prescribed Words. If the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots. The Player who called the initial CFJ has the duty to report to the Tabulator any Blots gained through this rule. Rule 1446/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Contests A contest is a subgame of Agora Nomic, having its own Name, Entry Fee, Regulations, Contestmaster, and Contest Fund. It is created when a Player posts to the Public Forum an announcement of the contest, including the Name and Regulations. Participants in the subgame are called Contestants of that contest. The player making the post becomes the Contestmaster. The Contestmaster for a given Contest is a Player who has responsibility for administering the subgame. He reports all score changes and currency transfers taking place under the Regulations, administers the Contest Fund, and maintains the Regulations. The Contest Fund is an entity capable of owning, trading, and spending Points or Currencies in the same manner as a Player, but only as authorized by the Regulations. The Regulations specify the operation of the Contest. All Contestants, and the Contestmaster, are bound by the Regulations except where these conflict with the Rules. They may also specify: - how the Contestmaster is replaced, - how currencies and Points are transferred to or from the Contest Fund, - the amount of the Entry Fee for the Contest, which shall be in Points, - additional restrictions on Players to become Contestants, - how the Regulations may be changed, and - ways for the Contest to be dissolved. A Player becomes a Contestant by notifying the Contestmaster and paying the prescribed Entry Fee to the Contest Fund. A Contestant may quit a Contest at any time by so notifying the Contestmaster, or by so posting to the Public Forum. A contest is dissolved when there is no Contestmaster and no provision for replacing em, or as otherwise provided in the rules, or in the Regulations. When this happens the Contest Fund is distributed as provided in the Regulations; if no provision is made the Fund is divided equally between the Contestants. If according to the Regulations the Contest Fund must transfer Points and/or currency to a Contestant, and the Fund does not have sufficient resources, then enough of the Contestmaster's Points and/or currency are transferred to the Fund to cover the transaction. If e does not have sufficient Points or currency to accomplish this, then each Contestant is given back eir entry fee, and the Contestmaster loses the number of Points of the returned entry fees. The Contest is then dissolved. No Blots shall be assigned by this Rule. This transfer is not taxable. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules which determine which Point and Currency transfers are legal and/or taxable, or which would assign Blots to any Player. Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 04:04:15 -0400 From: gb485@cleveland.freenet.edu (Steven A Swiniarski) To: nomic-business@teleport.com > > >I am happy to announce that there is a second hole in the Contest Rule! >Note that it is nowhere said who the Contestmaster shall be, nor that >it shall be a participant. >Furthermore, the Contestmaster is not an Officer. Therefore the Regulations >can appoint eim, without his consent. > >After these preliminaries (and just before we disgustedly repeal 1446), >here is: > >TAL's `Make another Contestmaster' Contest. > >Name: Make-another-Contestmaster Contest (MAC Contest) > >Regulations: > >1) Immediately after TAL has become participant in the Contest, the >Player with the highest score in the current game shall become >Contestmaster. >2) The Contestmaster shall transfer 90% of his Points to the Contest as >soon as possible after TAL has become participant. >3) The winner of the Contest shall be TAL. The winner shall receive >all the Points in the Contest Fund. The transfer of these Points >shall be made as soon as possible as the contents of the Funds is >larger than 10 Points. >After the transfer has been made the MAC Contest is dissolved. >4) The participation fee is one Point. > >==== >Scorekeepor, Reform Group Vizier, > >I transfer enough Reform Coins to the Reform Treasury to obtain 1 Point. > >As soon as I have one Point I transfer this Point to the MAC Contest Fund. > >===== >What happens next? > >Well, after these transfers have taken place, the new Contestmaster will >be the Player with the highest score. > >He then must transfer 90% of his Points to the MAC Contest Fund. > >Very soon after that, I become winner of this Contest. > >===== > > >TAL > > Nice, this may work. If it does, I propose the following contest: Revenge for TAL: 1) The Contestmaster of this contest is TAL 2) All points and Currencies owned by the Contestmaster are immediatly transfered to the Contest Fund. 3) All points and Currencies recieved by the Contestmaster are immediatly transfered into the Contest Fund. 4) These regulations cannot be changed. 5) The Contestmaster may not Change 6) No one may win this Contest Take that. Swann -- Steven Swiniarski (aka S Andrew Swann) gb485@cleveland.freenet.edu Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship. --Harry S Truman This announcement creates a contest, named "No More Contests", whose Regulations are as follows: Reg. 1: The contestmaster is elJefe. Reg. 2: Immediately after this Contest is created, elJefe is replaced as Contestmaster by Troublemaker at Large. Reg. 3: The Contestmaster may not create any Contests. E must, if possible, dissolve any other Contest in which e is Contestmaster. E may not transfer any points to or from other Contest Funds. Reg. 4: If the Contestmaster is deregistered or forfeits from Agora Nomic, the most recent Contestmaster still registered becomes Contestmaster once again. Reg. 5: In case any player legally creates a Contest, that player replaces the current Contestmaster, and becomes the new Contestmaster. Reg. 6: Anyone becoming Contestmaster via Reg. 5 must within one hour both go On Hold, and transfer all eir currencies and Points to the Contest Fund. E may not come Off Hold until this Contest is dissolved. Anyone becoming Contestmaster for the second time via Reg. 5 must immediately forfeit the game of Agora Nomic. Reg. 7: The Contest is dissolved when Player elJefe posts a message so announcing to the Public Forum. Reg. 8: If the Contest is dissolved, the Contest Fund is distributed to the Wanderers Contest Fund. Reg. 9: The Entry fee is 1000 Points. ======= Greetings, TAL ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Arguments: In order to determine the truth or falsity of TAL's Statement, we must determine the Truth or Falsity of the following specific points: 1) The No More Contests Contest (NMC) was a legal Contest via Rule 1446. 2) That the NMC Regulations can, via Rule 1446, require a Player to involuntarily become Contestmaster of NMC and legally force that Player, via Rule 1446, to transfer all eir points and Currencies to the NMC Contest Fund and force that Player to go On Hold. 3) That a violation of Contest Regulations is a Violation of Rule 1446. 4) That my posting crated a valid legal Contest, via rule 1446. 5) That a Contest Creation via point 4) invoked the particular Regulations of the NMC referred to in point 2) 6) That my failure to transfer Points, Currencies or and On Hold was a violation of the NMC Regulations, and via point 4) a violation of Rule 1446. All six items must be valid and true in order for TAL's Statement to be true. I will address each in turn before rendering a Judgement. Point 1) Rule 1446/0 states: "A Contest is created when a Player Posts to the Public Forum an announcement of the contest, including the Name and Regulations." NMC fulfills this requirement, it was posted to the Public Forum with a Name and a list of Regulations, therefore it was legally Created. Point 2) >From the NMC Regs: " Reg. 5: In case any player legally creates a Contest, that player replaces the current Contestmaster, and becomes the new Contestmaster. Reg. 6: Anyone becoming Contestmaster via Reg. 5 must within one hour both go On Hold, and transfer all eir currencies and Points to the Contest Fund. E may not come Off Hold until this Contest is dissolved. Anyone becoming Contestmaster for the second time via Reg. 5 must immediately forfeit the game of Agora Nomic." This is more problematic. First, can a Contest force a Player to become a Contestmaster? Apparently so, since there is no provision within 1446/0, or elsewhere in the rules to prevent it. Next in order of events, can the regulations of that Contest then force a Player to go On Hold? >From 1446/0: "The Regulations specify the operation of the Contest. All Contestants, and the Contestmaster, are bound by the Regulations except where these conflict with the Rules." Does requiring someone to go on Hold conflict with the Rules? It doesn't seem to conflict with 1016/2, which only forbids a Player from putting someone other than eimself on Hold. So far, so good. Now that the Player is on Hold, can e transfer currencies and/or points to the NMC Contest fund as required? Well, Rule 692/2 says nothing preventing a Player On Hold from Trading Points. And Rule 614/1 likewise only refers to Players, not Active Players. Thus these events can be mandated, in the order in which they are mandated. There is, however, an interesting wrinkle to this: >From 1016/2: "While On Hold, a Player may not Vote, propose Proposals, or campaign for or hold Office. E is also absolved of any duties which would otherwise be required of eim, including appointment as a Judge This rule takes precedence over any rule giving special duties to a particular player or a particular group of players." Note that this rule absolves the Player on Hold from *all duties* once e goes on Hold. This *includes* the duty of Contestmaster. Therefore, the Contestmaster referred to in Reg 6 of NMC Regs has ceased to be Contestmaster by the time the first comma is reached. The one immediate side effect of this is the fact that once the Contestmaster goes On Hold, as required, the NMC Regs cease to be binding, since e is no longer the Contestmaster. Side Effect one: E can come off of Hold immediately, since the restriction about remaining on Hold until the Contest is dissolved is non-binding on someone who is not the Contestmaster. Side Effect two: The Contestmaster must be immediately replaced to fulfill the balance of Reg 6 (the Point and Currency Transfer) *or* Rule 1446/0 mandates the dissolution of a Contestmasterless Contest. Can the Contestmaster be replaced? Unfortunately, no. The NMC Regs only provide explicitly for a Contestmaster forfeiting, or deregistering. So, once Reg 6 is invoked, the NMC contest ceases to exist once the Contestmaster goes on Hold. Because of the order of events, the point/currency transfer need not take place as mandated. If the Contestmaster Goes on Hold first, as written, the requirement ceases to be operative. Point 3) Again From 1446/0: "The Regulations specify the operation of the Contest. All Contestants, and the Contestmaster, are bound by the Regulations except where these conflict with the Rules." A violation of the Regs is a violation of 1446/0, provided the Regs do not violate the Rules. Point 4) Rule 1446/0 states: "A Contest is created when a Player Posts to the Public Forum an announcement of the contest, including the Name and Regulations." My post contained a name, "Revenge for TAL" (RFT) and a list of regulations, and was posted in the Public Forum. However, it contained the conditional phrasing: "Nice, this may work. If it does, I propose the following contest:" This is referring to TAL's "Make another Contestmaster" (MAC) Contest. However, the goal of the MAC contest was to transfer 90% of the Points from the Player with the highest score to TAL. This did not work. So the condition of this phrase was not met. Was this conditional phrasing legal? Unfortunately, (for me) I think not. According to the wording, a Contest becomes a Contest when the announcement appears. This announcement appeared long before the "work/not work" question was answered definitively. Since the conditional phrase was not part of the RFT Regs, it had no effect once the Contest was formed. Point 5) I legally created the RFT Contest by posting my message. >From the NMC Regs: "Reg. 5: In case any player legally creates a Contest, that player replaces the current Contestmaster, and becomes the new Contestmaster." TAL was then the Contestmaster of NMC, thus I replaced TAL and TAL Ceased being the Contestmaster of NMC. >From the RFT Regs: "1) The Contestmaster of this contest is TAL." Upon my becoming Contestmaster of NMC, TAL became Contestmaster of RFT. Point 6) TAL's Statement: "Swann violated Rule 1446 by not transferring all his points and Currencies to the No More Contests Contest Fund and by not going On Hold within an hour after creating his own revengeful Contest." Now I am supposed to judge the truth or falsity of this statement. According to my reasoningthus far, I could have satisfied the rules simply by going on Hold and dissolving the NMC contest. But this statement explicitly states that my violation was in not doing *both* the transfer *and* going On Hold. Not only that, but the wording of this Statement is in precisely the opposite order of that required in NMC Reg 6. I must therefore come to an implicit Point 7) Is it *possible* for me to Judge this Statement TRUE? The fact is, if I judge this statement TRUE, I am to issue an Injunction that I am on Hold, and have been since an hour after I became the Contestmaster of NMC. If I issue that Injunction, I am on Hold and I am ineligible to issue that Injunction. If I am ineligible to issue that Injunction, that Injunction has no effect, I am not on Hold. If I am not on Hold, I am mandated to issue that Injunction. It is impossible, due to this logical paradox, for me to issue a Judgement of TRUE. UNDECIDABLE is reserved for paradoxical Statements, not paradoxical Judgements. There is simply not enough ambiguity in this Statement, or in the Rules, for me to Judge UNKNOWN. After weighing each possible Judgement available to me, and bending over backwards to avoid even an appearance of bias in my own favor, I am only left with one possible decision, FALSE. In the end, this Judgement is based on a strict reading of the unconditional nature of the Statement, not necessarily in the intended argument. ---------------------------------------- References: ---------------------------------------- Rule 1016/2 (Semimutable, MI=2) Putting Oneself on Hold A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by sending a message indicating such to the Public Forum. A Player may not place any other Player besides emself on Hold. A Player may cease to be On Hold by sending a message indicating such to the Public Forum, so long as it has been at least 96 hours since e last went On Hold. While On Hold, a Player may not Vote, propose Proposals, or campaign for or hold Office. E is also absolved of any duties which would otherwise be required of eim, including appointment as a Judge This rule takes precedence over any rule giving special duties to a particular player or a particular group of players. (*Was: 464/870*) History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1337, Nov. 22 1994 Amended(2) by Proposal 1374, Jan. 17 1995 Mutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 1407, Jan. 29 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 692/2 (Mutable, MI=1) Trading Points A Player may voluntarily transfer Points to any other Player for any purpose, within the following limits: (a) the transfer must be posted to the Public Forum (b) a Player may only transfer a positive number of Points (c) a Player may not transfer more Points than e currently has (d) a Player may not transfer Points if the recipient has more than than 90% of the Points required to Win, or would pass this limit as a result of the transfer. If any agreement among Players includes any transfer of Points between two Players then each such transfer shall be in accordance with the above. But this Rule shall not be construed as having any bearing on the legality or legal enforceability of any terms of said agreement which do not involve such a transfer. All Nomic Entities shall abide by the above limits whenever Points are traded. If a Nomic Entity must trade Points by the current Rules but would end up breaking the above limits, then the Nomic Entity trades the maximum amount possible without breaking any of the above limits. This Rule shall have precedence over all other Rules pertaining to the Trading of Points. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1360, Dec. 13 1994 Amended(2) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995 ---------------------------------------------- Rule 614/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Currencies: Transferring Currencies A player may voluntarily transfer any Currency in eir possession to any other player for any purpose by sending such a message to the Recordkeepor for that Currency, within the following limits: a) a player may only transfer a positive number of a Currency b) a player may not transfer more of a Currency than e currently has. This rule applies to Currencies in general, and thus defers to rules for specific Currencies. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1470, Mar. 8 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 880/0 (Mutable, MI=1) No Vacations for Officers No Officer may be 'On Hold' while holding an Office. If a current Officer should place himself On Hold, he is assumed to have resigned without appointing a successor, and the Office should be re-filled in the normal manner. (*Was: 405*) ---------------------------------------- Rule 591/2 (Mutable, MI=1) Legal Judgements A legal Judgement is either TRUE, FALSE, UNDECIDABLE, or UNKNOWN. The Judgement of UNDECIDABLE is reserved for those statements which are logically neither TRUE nor FALSE. The Judgement of UNKNOWN is for those statements for which the Judge is unable to obtain information necessary to determine whether the statement is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDABLE. The Judge must make a reasonable effort to obtain all information necessary to determine whether the statement is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDABLE. The Judgement must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations of deciding Rules, past Judgements, and game custom. A Judgement delivered without reasons and/or arguments is completely invalid. Such reasons and arguments form no part of the Judgement itself. However, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the reasons and arguments along with the Judgement. Any evidence which is used to justify the Judgement, other than appeals to Game Custom or to common sense, must be presented by the Judge. If the Judge introduces evidence beyond that submitted in the Call for Judgement, e must include this evidence in eir Judgement. All such added evidence must be distributed as part of the reasons and arguments by the Clerk of the Courts. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994 Amended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995 ---------------------------------------- -- Steven Swiniarski (aka S Andrew Swann) gb485@cleveland.freenet.edu Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship. --Harry S Truman ====================================================================== -- kelly martin I have been told that when a large group of people believe in a fantasy, it is called a culture. When a small group believes, it is called a cult. When two people believe in a fantasy, it is called love; and when one person believes, it is called psychosis. From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Thu May 11 18:58:56 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id SAA02659 for ; Thu, 11 May 1995 18:58:48 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id QAA02258 for nomic-official-outgoing; Thu, 11 May 1995 16:57:56 -0700 Received: from mizar.astro.indiana.edu (mizar.astro.indiana.edu [129.79.160.43]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA02230 for ; Thu, 11 May 1995 16:57:49 -0700 Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0s9i6u-0001bZC; Thu, 11 May 95 18:57 EST Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga) id <2zzm@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Thu, 11 May 95 18:00:56 EST5 Date: Thu, 11 May 95 18:00:56 EST5 Message-Id: <9505112300.2zzm@poverty.bloomington.in.us> From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin) To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: CFJ766: Judgement Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 766 (The Rules should be interpreted, such that Proposal 1577...) ====================================================================== Judgement: TRUE Judge: Swann Eligible to Judge: Elde, TAL, JonRock, Blob, Xanadu, KoJen, Vlad, elJefe, Michael, Tang, Steve, Vanyel, Swann, Kelly, Dave Bowen, Ian Judge: Pascal, defaulted Eligible to Judge: Elde, JonRock, Blob, Xanadu, KoJen, Pascal, elJefe, Michael, Steve, Vanyel, Swann, Kelly, Dave Bowen, Jeffrey, Tang Judge: Oerjan, defaulted Eligible to Judge: Elde, JonRock, Oerjan, Blob, Xanadu, KoJen, Pascal, elJefe, Michael, Steve, Vanyel, Swann, Kelly, Dave Bowen, Jeffrey, Tang Caller: Chuck Scorekeepor: Oerjan loses 10 Points for defaulting on Judgement Pascal loses 10 Points for defaulting on Judgement Swann receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called Fri, 21 Apr 1995 03:53:38 -0500 by Chuck Assigned Fri, 21 Apr 1995 15:30 UTC to Oerjan Defaulted Fri, 28 Apr 1995 15:30 UTC by Oerjan --> Oerjan loses 10 Points for defaulting on Judgement Reassigned Sun, 30 Apr 1995 01:35 UTC to Pascal Defaulted Sun, 07 May 1995 01:35 UTC by Pascal --> Pascal loses 10 Points for defaulting on Judgement Reassigned Mon, 08 May 1995 06:40 UTC to Swann Judged TRUE Tue, 9 May 1995 17:34:56 -0400 by Swann ====================================================================== Statement: "The Rules should be interpreted, such that Proposal 1577 contains zero Rule Changes and zero Directives." Barred: Andre ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: At first glance, Proposal 1577 seems to contain a Directive to Change the Category of a Rule. But it does not; by Rule 1054, such a Directive must state the old category of the Rule, which Proposal 1577 does not do. (As an aside, I note that Promotor Coren *correctly* assigned Proposal 1577 an AI of 1, rather than the AI of 2 it would have if it contained a Directive to change the category of a Rule.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- References: I. Proposal 1577 II. Rule 1054. ======I. Proposal 1577 Proposal 1577 (Andre) Protoed, Short Adoption Index: 1 Change the Category of the Public Forum (Directive) Change the Category of Rule 478. The new Category should be 'The Distributor and the Assistant'. ======II. Rule 1054 Rule 1054/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Changing the Category of a Rule The assigned Category of an existing Rule may be changed by means of a Directive to change the Category of that Rule. Such a Directive shall clearly state the Rule whose Category is to be changed, its old Category, and its proposed new Category. The Proposal containing such a Directive must have an Adoption Index of at least 2. ====================================================================== Judgement: TRUE As to the first part of the Statement, Proposal 1577 does not even allege that it contains any Rule Changes, and it would be ludicrous for anyone to argue that it does. (Which leaves the Judge wondering why this needs to be part of the Statement, it is akin to a Statement saying, "Proposal 1577 was Proposed by Andre and contains zero Directives.") As to the part of the Statement I am Judging: "... Proposal 1577 contains [...] zero Directives." >From Proposal 1577: "Change the Category of Rule 478. The new Category should be 'The Distributor and the Assistant'." >From Rule 1054/1 (Changing the Category of a Rule): "Such a Directive shall clearly state the Rule whose Category is to be changed, its old Category, and its proposed new Category." Obviously, Proposal 1577 clearly states the Rule whose Category was to be changed, and its proposed new Category. It does not, however, state the old Category of the Rule. Therefore, this text, which alleges to be a Directive, is not a legally formed Directive as defined by the Rules. It is, I believe, accepted Judicial practice to assume that there is no such thing as a Directive not defined by the Rules-- there are only Directives and non-Directives. The text in Proposal 1577 is the latter, and therefore the Statement is TRUE. The Promotor was correct in assigning this Proposal any AI e deemed appropriate, since there is no set AI for a Proposal containing random text (other than it must be at least AI=1.) ====================================================================== From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Thu May 18 19:14:08 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id TAA11802 for ; Thu, 18 May 1995 19:06:25 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id RAA22137 for nomic-official-outgoing; Thu, 18 May 1995 17:05:20 -0700 Received: from mizar.astro.indiana.edu (mizar.astro.indiana.edu [129.79.160.43]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA21982 for ; Thu, 18 May 1995 17:04:59 -0700 Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0sCFYj-0001oZC; Thu, 18 May 95 19:04 EST Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga) id <31vb@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Thu, 18 May 95 19:00:12 EST5 Date: Thu, 18 May 95 19:00:12 EST5 Message-Id: <9505190000.31vb@poverty.bloomington.in.us> From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin) To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: CFJ767: Judgement Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 767 (The Scorekeepor's report of April 24, 1995 is in error,...) ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Judge: eljefe Eligible to Judge: Elde, TAL, JonRock, Xanadu, KoJen, Vlad, elJefe, Michael, Tang, Steve, Vanyel, Swann, Dave Bowen, Ian, Chuck Judge: Blob, defaulted Eligible to Judge: Elde, TAL, JonRock, Blob, Xanadu, KoJen, Vlad, elJefe, Michael, Tang, Steve, Vanyel, Swann, Dave Bowen, Ian, Chuck Judge: Oerjan, defaulted Eligible to Judge: Elde, TAL, Oerjan, Blob, Xanadu, KoJen, Pascal, elJefe, Michael, Chuck, Tang, Steve, Vanyel, Swann, Dave Bowen, Jeffrey Caller: Andre Scorekeepor: Oerjan loses 10 Points for defaulting on Judgement Blob loses 10 Points for defaulting on Judgement elJefe receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called Thu, 27 Apr 95 13:26:11 METDST by Andre Assigned Thu, 27 Apr 1995 22:15 UTC to Oerjan Defaulted Thu, 4 May 1995 22:15 UTC by Oerjan --> Oerjan loses 10 Points for defaulting Reassigned Mon, 08 May 1995 06:40 UTC to Blob Defaulted Mon, 15 May 1995 06:40 UTC by Blob --> Blob loses 10 Points for defaulting Reassigned Tue, 16 May 1995 00:00 UTC to elJefe Judged FALSE Wed, 17 May 1995 09:25:12 -0400 by elJefe --> elJefe receives 5 Points ====================================================================== Statement: "The Scorekeepor's report of April 24, 1995 is in error, in that the Salaries as claimed to be received by Kelly, Andre and Steve are too high." Barred: Kelly ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: Andre is said to have had a Salary of 8 points. However Rule 1040 clearly states he has a Salary of 5 points. Rule 1007 defers to it. In my opinion if 'XXX shall receive a Salary of 5 points' takes precedence over 'XXX shall receive a Salary of 3 points' the resulting Salary should be 5 points, not 3. For Kelly it's more or less the same, this time Rule 889 being the sole responsible for eir salary. Rule 910 states that Steve, as Justiciar, should not receive a Salary. This Rule takes precedence over Rule 1007 which says e should. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- References: Scorekeepor's report of April 24, 1995: Scores as of 24 Apr 1995 at 03:02 GMT: Andre +167.8 (+ 42.2 = 210.0) 0 blots Kelly +67.3 (+ 177.7 = 245.0) 2 blots KoJen +39.0 (+ 276.0 = 315.0) 0 blots Jason +34.0 (+ 176.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Dave Bowen +27.0 (+ 218.0 = 245.0) 0 blots Tang +25.3 (+ 184.7 = 210.0) 0 blots Jeffrey D +22.0 (+ 223.0 = 245.0) 0 blots Oerjan +22.0 (+ 188.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Troublemaker at Large +19.0 (+ 261.0 = 280.0) 0 blots elJefe +17.0 (+ 228.0 = 245.0) 0 blots Michael +15.0 (+ 230.0 = 245.0) 0 blots Donna & Co. +13.0 (+ 197.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Elde +13.0 (+ 197.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Swann +11.0 (+ 199.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Vanyel +5.0 (+ 240.0 = 245.0) 0 blots Chuck +5.0 (+ 240.0 = 245.0) 0 blots Blob +3.0 (+ 207.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Coren +3.0 (+ 207.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Steve +2.6 (+ 242.4 = 245.0) 1 blots JonRock +0.0 (+ 210.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Vlad -49.0 (+ 259.0 = 210.0) 2 blots Reform +2595.9 Abelian +793.2 Volkspartei +105.0 GSHN Contest Fund +25.0 Wanderers Contest Fund +20.0 Scam Contest Fund +2.0 Dictator Contest Fund +0.0 ====================================================================== Scores as of 17 Apr 1995 at 00:01 GMT: Andre +141.8 (+ 58.2 = 200.0) 0 blots Steve +53.0 (+ 180.3 = 233.3) 1 blots Kelly +39.0 (+ 194.3 = 233.3) 2 blots Chuck +34.0 (+ 199.3 = 233.3) 0 blots Vanyel +29.0 (+ 204.3 = 233.3) 0 blots Jason +21.0 (+ 179.0 = 200.0) 0 blots KoJen +20.0 (+ 280.0 = 300.0) 0 blots Jeffrey D +19.0 (+ 214.3 = 233.3) 0 blots Oerjan +19.0 (+ 181.0 = 200.0) 0 blots Dave Bowen +18.0 (+ 215.3 = 233.3) 0 blots Coren +14.0 (+ 186.0 = 200.0) 0 blots Blob +13.0 (+ 187.0 = 200.0) 1 blots Donna & Co. +13.0 (+ 187.0 = 200.0) 0 blots Elde +13.0 (+ 187.0 = 200.0) 0 blots Michael +13.0 (+ 220.3 = 233.3) 0 blots Troublemaker at Large +4.0 (+ 262.7 = 266.7) 0 blots Swann +3.0 (+ 197.0 = 200.0) 0 blots JonRock +0.0 (+ 200.0 = 200.0) 0 blots elJefe +0.0 (+ 233.3 = 233.3) 0 blots Vlad -49.0 (+ 249.0 = 200.0) 2 blots Reform +2477.8 Abelian +793.2 Volkspartei +105.0 GSHN Contest Fund +25.0 Scam Contest Fund +2.0 Dictator Contest Fund +0.0 Wanderers Contest Fund +0.0 01 Apr 1995 at 71:21 GMT Steve OFF: Assessor's Report: Results for Proposals 1554-1562 Andre +19.0 = +160.8 (+ 39.2 = 200.0) 0 blots Blob -5.0 = +8.0 (+ 192.0 = 200.0) 1 blots Dave Bowen +9.0 = +27.0 (+ 206.3 = 233.3) 0 blots elJefe +19.0 = +19.0 (+ 214.3 = 233.3) 0 blots Jason +9.0 = +30.0 (+ 170.0 = 200.0) 0 blots Kelly +9.0 = +48.0 (+ 185.3 = 233.3) 2 blots KoJen +16.0 = +36.0 (+ 264.0 = 300.0) 0 blots Michael +9.0 = +22.0 (+ 211.3 = 233.3) 0 blots Steve +9.0 = +62.0 (+ 171.3 = 233.3) 1 blots Swann +9.0 = +12.0 (+ 188.0 = 200.0) 0 blots Troublemaker at Large +13.0 = +17.0 (+ 249.7 = 266.7) 0 blots 17 Apr 1995 at 14:44 GMT Michael BUS: point transfer Michael -10.0 = +12.0 (+ 221.3 = 233.3) 0 blots Wanderers Contest Fund +10.0 = +10.0 17 Apr 1995 at 15:22 GMT Kelly OFF: CFJ764: Judgement Michael +3.0 = +15.0 (+ 218.3 = 233.3) 0 blots 17 Apr 1995 at 17:08 GMT Chuck BUS: Point Transfer Chuck -34.0 = +0.0 (+ 233.3 = 233.3) 0 blots Reform +34.0 = +2511.8 18 Apr 1995 at 00:57 GMT Blob BUS: Removing blots Player Blob loses 1 blots. Blob -5.0 = +3.0 (+ 197.0 = 200.0) 0 blots 18 Apr 1995 at 14:50 GMT Kelly OFF: CFJ765: Reassignment Coren -2.0 = +12.0 (+ 188.0 = 200.0) 0 blots Kelly +1.0 = +49.0 (+ 184.3 = 233.3) 2 blots 19 Apr 1995 at 02:51 GMT Kelly OFF: CFJ762; Judgement 19 Apr 1995 at 06:01 GMT Steve BUS: point transfer Kelly +8.3 = +57.3 (+ 176.0 = 233.3) 2 blots Reform +53.7 = +2565.5 Steve -62.0 = +0.0 (+ 233.3 = 233.3) 1 blots 19 Apr 1995 at 06:52 GMT Vanyel BUS: Point transfer Reform +18.4 = +2583.9 Steve +0.6 = +0.6 (+ 232.7 = 233.3) 1 blots Vanyel -29.0 = +0.0 (+ 233.3 = 233.3) 0 blots Wanderers Contest Fund +10.0 = +20.0 19 Apr 1995 at 18:32 GMT (n/a) BUS: New Player Registration New player: Tang (TANG) Tang +25.3 = +25.3 (+ 184.7 = 210.0) 0 blots 21 Apr 1995 at 07:00 GMT Coren Point transfers Coren -12.0 = +0.0 (+ 210.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Reform +12.0 = +2595.9 21 Apr 1995 at 07:00 GMT Coren Promotor's Report, 21 Apr 1995: New Proposals 1563-1580 Andre -1.0 = +159.8 (+ 50.2 = 210.0) 0 blots elJefe -2.0 = +17.0 (+ 228.0 = 245.0) 0 blots Kelly -2.0 = +55.3 (+ 189.7 = 245.0) 2 blots Steve -3.0 = -2.4 (+ 247.4 = 245.0) 1 blots Swann -4.0 = +8.0 (+ 202.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Troublemaker at Large -1.0 = +16.0 (+ 264.0 = 280.0) 0 blots 21 Apr 1995 at 07:01 GMT Coren BUS: Coren is leaving, for a little while Player Vanyel becomes Distributor Player Vanyel becomes Assistant Player Vanyel becomes Promotor 21 Apr 1995 at 08:39 GMT Coren BUS: Coren going On Hold Player Coren goes on hold 24 Apr 1995 at 00:00 GMT (n/a) Pensions Coren +3.0 = +3.0 (+ 207.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Jeffrey D +3.0 = +22.0 (+ 223.0 = 245.0) 0 blots Oerjan +3.0 = +22.0 (+ 188.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Swann +3.0 = +11.0 (+ 199.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Troublemaker at Large +3.0 = +19.0 (+ 261.0 = 280.0) 0 blots 24 Apr 1995 at 00:00 GMT Salaries * Player Kelly receives Ambassador salary. * Player Vanyel receives Archivist salary. * Player Vanyel does not receive Assistant salary (less than 5 days in Office) * Player Steve receives Assessor salary. * Player Andre receives Banker salary. * Player Kelly receives Clerk of the Courts salary. * Player Vanyel does not receive Distributor salary (less than 5 days in Office) * Player Andre receives Herald salary. * Player Vanyel does not receive Promotor salary (less than 5 days in Office) * Player KoJen receives Registrar salary. * Player Chuck receives Rulekeepor salary. * Player Kelly receives Scorekeepor salary. * Player Jason receives Tabulator salary. Andre +8.0 = +167.8 (+ 42.2 = 210.0) 0 blots Chuck +5.0 = +5.0 (+ 240.0 = 245.0) 0 blots Jason +4.0 = +34.0 (+ 176.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Kelly +12.0 = +67.3 (+ 177.7 = 245.0) 2 blots KoJen +3.0 = +39.0 (+ 276.0 = 315.0) 0 blots Steve +5.0 = +2.6 (+ 242.4 = 245.0) 1 blots Vanyel +5.0 = +5.0 (+ 240.0 = 245.0) 0 blots 24 Apr 1995 at 03:01 GMT end of score file Scores as of 24 Apr 1995 at 03:02 GMT: Andre +167.8 (+ 42.2 = 210.0) 0 blots Kelly +67.3 (+ 177.7 = 245.0) 2 blots KoJen +39.0 (+ 276.0 = 315.0) 0 blots Jason +34.0 (+ 176.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Dave Bowen +27.0 (+ 218.0 = 245.0) 0 blots Tang +25.3 (+ 184.7 = 210.0) 0 blots Jeffrey D +22.0 (+ 223.0 = 245.0) 0 blots Oerjan +22.0 (+ 188.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Troublemaker at Large +19.0 (+ 261.0 = 280.0) 0 blots elJefe +17.0 (+ 228.0 = 245.0) 0 blots Michael +15.0 (+ 230.0 = 245.0) 0 blots Donna & Co. +13.0 (+ 197.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Elde +13.0 (+ 197.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Swann +11.0 (+ 199.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Vanyel +5.0 (+ 240.0 = 245.0) 0 blots Chuck +5.0 (+ 240.0 = 245.0) 0 blots Blob +3.0 (+ 207.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Coren +3.0 (+ 207.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Steve +2.6 (+ 242.4 = 245.0) 1 blots JonRock +0.0 (+ 210.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Vlad -49.0 (+ 259.0 = 210.0) 2 blots Reform +2595.9 Abelian +793.2 Volkspartei +105.0 GSHN Contest Fund +25.0 Wanderers Contest Fund +20.0 Scam Contest Fund +2.0 Dictator Contest Fund +0.0 Notice: Information as to the number of Blots possessed by each Player is for advisory purposes only. This Report does not in any way allege to be factual and correct on the matter of anything other than the number of Points held by various Entities, and the nature and size of the various changes to those holdings. -- kelly martin I have been told that when a large group of people believe in a fantasy, it is called a culture. When a small group believes, it is called a cult. When two people believe in a fantasy, it is called love; and when one person believes, it is called psychosis. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1007/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Default Salary of Officers Officers (excluding Viziers, Ordinancekeepors, and any other Officers whose duties pertain only to a single Group) shall receive a salary of 3 Points per week, unless another Rule explicitly states another salary. All salaries shall be paid at the beginning of each Nomic week, on condition that the Officer has been in Office for at least five days. The second paragraph of this Rule takes precedence over all Rules that determine payday differently. (*Was: 849*) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 889/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Clerk of the Courts There shall exist an Office "Clerk of the Courts", who shall have general responsibility over administering Calls for Judgement, as outlined in the Rules. The Clerk's salary shall be five points. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1441, Feb. 21 1995 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 910/2 (Mutable, MI=1) The Justiciar Let there be an Office of Justiciar. The Justiciar shall have the duties of judging appeals when serving as Justice. E shall receive no weekly salary. A vacant Office of Justiciar is filled in the usual manner, but the Speaker or Clerk of the Courts may not become Justiciar. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1447, Feb. 21 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1040/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Marks There shall be a new unit of currency known as Marks. Any Player may possess zero or more Marks, but not less than zero. Any Player may give any number of Marks to any other Player, as long as that Player will not possess less than zero Marks at the end of the trade. There shall also be an entity known as the Bank, which shall possess Marks exactly like a Player. There shall also be an Office known as the Banker. The Banker shall keep an accurate record of how many Marks each Player possesses, and how many Marks are possessed by the Bank. The Banker shall recieve a salary of 5 Points after every seven days in Office. All Mark transfers shall be requested by a message to the server. The Banker shall send to the Public Forum at least once per Nomic week a report containing the balance and all changes in the Mark accounts of all Players and all Nomic Entities that may possess Marks. (*Was: 516*) ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE The CFJ claims an error in the Scorekeepor's report of April 24, following denial by the Scorekeepor of the associated Claim of Error. The claim is that the salaries received by Kelly, Andre and Steve are too high. Rule 1007/0 states that "Officers ... shall receive a salary of 3 Points per week, unless another rule explicitly states another salary." Rules 889/0, 902/0, and 1040/0 award salaries of 5 Points to the CotC, Scorekeepor, and Banker, respectively. Rule 910/2 states that the Justiciar shall receive no weekly salary. Rule 1070/2 gives the Ambassador 2 Points per week as salary. The score report shows Kelly receiving 5 Points as CotC, 5 Points as Scorekeepor, and 2 Points as Ambassador, Andre receiving 3 Points as Herald and 5 Points as Banker, and Steve receiving 5 Points as Assessor; all these are reported as being awarded on 24 Apr 1995 at 00:00 GMT. The argument is that the salaries should not amalgamate, but be treated as a conflict in the definition of "salary" and that only one salary should be awarded, to be determined by the conflict resolution rules. This is a little like saying that nobody should get F-A points because Rule 312 (each player who Voted gets 1 Point at the end of the Voting Period) takes precedence over Rule 833 (when the voting period is over, the proposer gets F-A points). In fact, there is no conflict; both awards can take place and do not interfere with each other. Or, similarly, the claim that because the Voting Periods for a set of Proposals all refer to the same time span, voters get 1 Point regardless of how many proposals were voted upon. This was disposed of in a recent Claim of Error. The use of the word "salary" indicates compensation for duties performed. Its clear meaning is that the points received are tied to the Office held. Each Office is associated with a separate salary, even if several are held by the same Player, just as each Proposal is associated with a separate Voting Period, even several share the same time span. Rule 1007/0 does not clearly state that holders of multiple Offices receive multiple salaries, but it does not state the contrary either. The interpretation of the Scorekeepor, that they shall so receive them, is in accordance with Game Custom and common sense. Thus Kelly's and Andre's salaries, as reported, are clearly consistent with the Rules. The statement in Rule 910/2 is rather interesting; it states that the Justiciar shall receive no salary. If this is taken as actually forbidding the player to receive Officer salaries, then (A.) it conflicts with Rule 1007/0 paragraph 2, and (B.) does not explicitly state another salary than the default 3 Points. Rule 910/2 claims precedence in such conflicts, and therefore Steve's salaries should total 8 Points. On the other hand, if the interpretation is that it simply makes the Justiciar salary 0 Points, then there is no conflict either with Rule 910/2 or with the awarding of the Assessor salary. This is the interpretation I would endorse. But in any case, it is not true that Steve's salary is too high, as claimed. - elJefe, Judge ****************************************************************** Dr. Jeffrey L. Caruso Information International ====================================================================== From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Thu May 11 18:58:57 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id SAA02662 for ; Thu, 11 May 1995 18:58:50 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id QAA02268 for nomic-official-outgoing; Thu, 11 May 1995 16:57:59 -0700 Received: from mizar.astro.indiana.edu (mizar.astro.indiana.edu [129.79.160.43]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA02246 for ; Thu, 11 May 1995 16:57:54 -0700 Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0s9i6u-0001baC; Thu, 11 May 95 18:57 EST Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga) id <2zzr@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Thu, 11 May 95 18:01:02 EST5 Date: Thu, 11 May 95 18:01:02 EST5 Message-Id: <9505112301.2zzr@poverty.bloomington.in.us> From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin) To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: CFJ768: Judgement Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 768 (The Move of the Vizier of Reform Group transferring Coins...) ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Judge: Xanadu Eligible to Judge: Elde, Oerjan, Blob, Xanadu, KoJen, Jason, elJefe, Michael, Chuck, Tang, Steve, Vanyel, Swann, Andre, Dave Bowen Caller: JonRock Scorekeepor: Xanadu receives 3 Points for timely Judgement (just barely!) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called Wed, 3 May 1995 19:59:06 -0400 by JonRock Assigned Thu, 4 May 1995 15:35 UTC to Xanadu Judged FALSE Thu, 11 May 1995 16:15:45 +1000 (EST) by Xanadu --> Xanadu receives 3 Points ====================================================================== Statement: The Move of the Vizier of Reform Group transferring Coins in response to the purchase request made by TAL in his message dated Thu, 13 Apr 95 17:37:33 SET, is illegal. Barred: Kelly, TAL Requested Injunction: If this CFJ is judged TRUE, I request that the Judge issue an Injunction specifying that the transfer be retracted and that the most recent representation to TAL of his Reform Group Coin holding be adjusted to reflect the retraction of this transfer. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: The relevant section of the Reform Group Ordinances in effect at the time of the Move in question is Ordinance 16. This Ordinance contains the sentence "The Vizier shall permit Players to purchase Coins of the Group from the Group, in exchange for Points at the current Rate of Exchange, plus the current Reform Service Fee, if that Player is not a current member of Reform," which clearly specifies that members of Reform, such as TAL, may not purchase Coins of the Group from the Group in exchange for Points. The Vizier of Reform Group is required to not honor this purchase request by Rule 721, which requires eim to obey the Ordinances of the Group of which e is a member. Note that an injunction to correct the report of Coin holdings is allowed, since that report is a "publication of game state" regardless of it not being a report of an Officer or being reported to all Players. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- References: I. Purchase request made by TAL II. Reform Group Ordinances, as represented by TAL to the external holders of Reform Group Coins on 13 Apr 95. III. Rule 721 ========== I. Purchase request made by TAL Message-Id: <199504131538.IAA20286@desiree.teleport.com> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 95 17:37:33 SET From: KUNNE@crnvma.cern.ch Subject: BUS: Two transfers To: nomic-business@teleport.com ElJefe writes: >Scorekeepor, please note: > > I hereby transfer 10.1 Points from myself to the "Make-another- > Contestmaster Contest" Fund. I do not thereby become a Contestant. > >Under regulation 3 of that Contest, TAL (who is still Contestmaster) is >required to transfer the 10.1 points to himself as soon as possible. > >Note that neither the rules not the regulations do not state that TAL >must be a Contestant in order to receive the points. After the transfer >has been made the MAC contest dissolves and leaves us in peace. Why, thank you. This seems to be a classic case of the threat being worse than the execution. Dear Scorekeepor, now that ElJefe dissolved the NMC: please register the transfer of 10.1 points from the MAC Contestfund to TAL. Signed: the MAC Contestmaster. Dear Scorekeepor, please transfer all TAL's points to the Reform Treasury in exchange for the corresponding number of Reform Coins. Signed: TAL ========== II. Reform Group Ordinances, as represented by TAL to the external holders of Reform Group Coins on 13 Apr 95. Date: Thu, 13 Apr 95 17:42:42 SET From: KUNNE@crnvma.cern.ch Subject: Reform Ordinances To: malcolmr@cse.unsw.edu.au, ccarroll@students.wisc.edu, ferro@CHEM.CMU.EDU, gb485@cleveland.Freenet.Edu, BlsPascal@aol.com Reform Group Ordinances (March 13, 1995) Last Ordinance changed: 16 0. The Purpose of this Group is to facilitate progressive change and dynamic growth within the Game of Agora Nomic, while also striving to insure the continuity and playability of the same. 1. In all matters which require the Consent of the Membership, the Vizier shall announce the Matter in the Group's Public Forum, and all Members shall indicate their opinion to the Vizier as soon as reasonably possible. Consent of the Membership is defined as at least two-thirds of the Members in favor of the matter at hand. The matter shall not be resolved until either seven days have passed from the Vizier's announcement, or matters are such that no possible response from those Members who have not yet responded could result in a change in the consensus opinion. If, after seven days, less than two-thirds of the Membership has responded at all, the consensus shall be that the Membership is silently opposed. 2. The Ordinances shall have the power to bind the Active Members of the Group to cast their individual Votes on Proposals in a manner determined by the Ordinances. In the event that the Ordinances do bind the Membership to Vote upon a Proposal in a specified way, no Member may cast a Vote on that Proposal which is not in concord with this binding; however, a Member may always choose to not Vote upon a given Proposal. 3. On each Proposal distributed by the Speaker, the Vizier shall seek to determine the consensus opinion of the Group of how the Membership of the Group shall vote. Each Member may express exactly one of the options specified below, or may indicate that e has no opinion; if any of these options is favored by at least two-thirds of those Members expressing an opinion, the Membership shall be bound by the terms of that option, provided that at least two-thirds of the Membership has responded at all prior to the end of the Voting Period for that Proposal. If no consensus of opinion is reached by the time that 24 hours remain of the Voting Period of a Proposal, then the Membership shall be free to Vote as they are individually inclined on that Proposal. The options are: * to vote FOR the Proposal; * to Vote AGAINST the Proposal; * to ABSTAIN on the Proposal; * to allow the Members to vote however they please on that Proposal (UNBOUND); * to direct the Vizier to solicit bids from the Electorate at large for the privilege of designating the manner in which the Group Members shall be bound to Vote (SOLD). When the consensus opinion of the Group on a specific Proposal is to offer the Group's Votes up for sale, the Vizier shall post an announcement to all Active Players advising them that the Membership of the Group offers its votes on that Proposal to the Player who bids the largest number of the Coin of the Group for that privilege. Members of the Reform Group may not enter bids in the sale of the Group's votes, nor may any Player who has been a Member of the Reform Group during the 7 days previous to the time the auction is announced. The Vizier shall then accept bids until 48 hours prior to the end of the Voting Period on that Proposal. The Vizier shall, at that time, notify the highest bidder, if there is one, that e has won the auction. If that Player, before the end of the Voting Period on that Proposal, both transfers eir bid, in the Coin of the Group, to the Group Treasury, and also specifies to the Membership how e wishes it to Vote, the Membership shall be bound to Vote in the manner specified by that Player. Otherwise the Membership shall be free to Vote however they please. Any time Coins of the Group are transferred to the Group treasury as a result of this Ordinance, one half of those Coins, rounded up, shall be distributed as evenly as possible among the active members of the Group; the remainder, along with any fraction unable to be evenly distributed, shall be destroyed. 4. The Vizier may expend Points or Currencies held in the Group's Treasury for any purpose, but only as specified in the Ordinances or with the Consent of the Membership. 5. New Members may be admitted to the Group with the consent of the Membership. The Name of a New Member shall be added to the bottom of the List of Members. 6. An existing Member may be expelled from the Group with the consent of the Membership. For the purpose of determining the Consent of the Membership in a matter of expulsion, the Member being considered for expulsion shall have no voice. 7. Whenever a Member leaves the Group for any reason, eir name shall be removed from the List of Members. 8. A Member may, at any time, request that eir name be moved to the bottom of the List of Members. 9. The Vizier may, at any time, nominate another Member as eir nominated successor, who shall become Vizier in the event of a vacancy, and may retract any such nomination at any time. All such nominations and retractions shall be made to the Group's Public Forum. 10. The Vizier may resign as Vizier at any time, with or without leaving the Group. Should the Vizier resign without nominating a successor, e shall be expelled from the Group. 11. In the event that the Group might otherwise have no Vizier, the Vizier's nominated successor shall become Vizier. If there is no nominated successor, or the nominated successor is ineligible, the first Member on the List of Members shall become Vizier. If there is no such Member, the Group shall be dissolved. 12. The Vizier shall, in addition to eir other duties, maintain a record of the nominated successors to all Group Offices, and maintain the List of Members in the order required by these Ordinances, and make this information available to any Member upon request. 13. The Vizier shall, at all times, be the Ordinancekeepor. 14. These Ordinances may be changed only with the consent of the Membership. No change in the Ordinances can have a retroactive effect, nor cause any action already performed by a member of the Group to become void or illegal under the Ordinances or the Rules. 15. The Vizier may create or destroy Coins of the Group at any time for any purpose, but only as specified in the Ordinances or with the Consent of the Membership. 16. The Vizier shall permit Players to purchase Coins of the Group from the Group, in exchange for Points at the current Rate of Exchange, plus the current Reform Service Fee, if that Player is not a current member of Reform. A Player who wishes to purchase Coins may do so by transferring a sufficient number of Points to the Group Treasury. When the Scorekeepor has confirmed the Point Transfer, the Vizier shall transfer the appropriate number of Coins to that Player, creating Coins if necessary. The current Reform Service Fee is equal to 5% of the transaction, not to be less than 1 Coin, or to exceed 50 Coins. 17. The Vizier shall permit Players to sell Coins of the Group back to the Group, in exchange for Points at the current Rate of Exchange. A Player who wishes to sell Coins back to the Group may do so by transferring the Coins e wishes to sell to the Group Treasury. The Vizier shall then transfer the appropriate number of Points from the Group Treasury to that Player. The transferred Coins shall then be destroyed. 18. The Rate of Exchange for Coins of the Group shall be the ratio between the number of Coins of the Group in existence (less those held in the Group's Treasury) and the number of Points held in the Group's Treasury. This ratio determines the number of Coins received in exchange for one Point, or the number of Coins needed to receive one Point. 19. A Member who leaves the Group for any reason shall not receive any share of the Points or Currencies in the Group's Treasury. 20. In the event of the dissolution of the Group, the Treasury shall be divided amongst the holders of the Coins of the Group, in proportion to the number of Coins held by each Player or other Entity. Coins held by the Treasury are not to be considered in this distribution. ========== III. Rule 721 Rule 721/0 (Mutable, MI=1) The Ordinances, and Defaults All Members of a Group must obey the Ordinances of that Group at all times, so long as the Ordinances do not conflict with the Rules. The Ordinances of a Group may specify: 1. how the Ordinances of that Group may be changed, or that they may not be changed. If the Ordinances do not so specify, then the Ordinances shall be changed only upon unanimous agreement of all Members of that Group. 2. the Vizier of the Group, so long as the Vizier is a Member of that Group. If the Ordinances of a Group do not so specify, the Vizier shall be the Player whose Application for that Group was received first by the Registrar, if e is still a Member of that Group. 3. the Ordinancekeepor of the Group, so long as the Ordinancekeepor is a Member of that Group. If the Ordinances do not so specify, then the Vizier of that Group shall also be its Ordinancekeepor. 4. How the Points or Currencies in the Group's Treasury shall be spent, so long as it does not conflict with the Rules. A Group may spend Points or Currencies in the same manner as a Player. When Points or Currencies are to be spent from the Group's Treasury, the Vizier of that Group shall inform the Scorekeepor or Recordkeepor for the Currency, as is appropriate. -- -- Jon Ferro Einsprachigkeit ist heilbar. ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE The only problem I had in judging this was whether to judge it false, or unknown. Arguments for judging it unknown are - That I have no gurantee to the validity of the Reform Group Ords submitted with this call for judgement, and that Reform does not (and is not required to) keep any form of records of coin transactions. I have, however, decided to accept the reform group ords as being true - I think the players of Agora can be trusted to the extent that at least _one_ member of reform would have informed me otherwise. I have therefore decided to judge this CFJ FALSE because - the exact wording of the ordinance which JonRock objected to is "The Vizier shall permit Players to purchase Coins of the Group from the Group, in exchange for Points at the current Rate of Exchange, plus the current Reform Service Fee, if that Player is not a current member of Reform." I don't believe the meaning of this is as clear as JonRock claims it is and feel it has two, equally acceptable meanings. One meaning would be that Members of Reform may not purchase coins, the other is that members of Reform are not required to pay the Reform Service Fee. Therefore, by allowing the transfer but not charging TAL a Service Fee (which Kelly tells me is what happened), Kelly and TAL were following the Reform ordinances, abeit, a slightly different interpretation of them from JonRocks. Reform ordinances were followed - therefore, the move was not illegal and this CFJ is False. Xanadu ====================================================================== From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Tue Jun 13 05:59:16 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id FAA29080 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 1995 05:45:53 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id DAA24551 for nomic-official-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 1995 03:45:20 -0700 Received: from wing3.wing.rug.nl (wing3.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.3]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA24527 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 1995 03:45:14 -0700 Message-Id: <199506131045.DAA24527@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing3.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA14125; Tue, 13 Jun 1995 12:44:56 +0200 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Judgement CFJ 769 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 12:44:56 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 769 (Rule 1466 should be interpreted such that a Proposal...) ====================================================================== Judgement: UNDECIDABLE Judge: Michael Eligible to Judge: TAL, Jon, Xanadu, elJefe, Michael, Ian, Vanyel, Swann, Andre, Kelly, Dave Bowen Caller: Chuck ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called Tue, 6 Jun 95 18:04:00 CST by Chuck Assigned Fri, 9 Jun 1995 00:00 UTC to Michael Judged UNDECIDABLE Tue, 13 JUN 1995 09:43 BST by Michael ====================================================================== Statement: Rule 1466 should be interpreted such that a Proposal containing one or more Currency Directives, and no other Directives or Rule Changes which would require the Proposal to have a Mutability Index greater than 1, has a Mutability Index of 1. Requested Injunction: I also request that the Judge make an Injunction on the interpetation of Rule 1466, as described in Rule 789. (Even though this request is not necessary for the Judge to make the Injunction.) Relevant Rules: 1466, 594, 993 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: My statement is a bit long, but this, I feel, is necessary. Essentially, it says that the presence of a Currency Directive in and of itself in a Proposal does not require that Proposal to have an AI greater than 1. Rule 1466 states that "These Directives [Currency Directives] have an Adoption Index of 2." An Adoption Index of a Directive is essentially meaningless, as no other Rule makes any reference to the AI of a Directive. Rule 594 sets the Adoption Index of Proposals, but is mainly concerned with Rule Changes. It merely defers to other Rules which set a higher AI for certain Proposals. 1466 is *not* such a Rule, as it says nothing about the AI of any Proposals, only the AI of certain Directives. Rule 993, defining Directives, states, "The Adoption Index of a Proposal containing a Directive must be at least as great as that required by the Rule or Rules which define the type of Directive contained in the Proposal." Rule 1466 makes *no* requirements about the AI of any Proposal. Furthermore, both Rule 993 and Game Custom make clear that even if a Proposal contains only a single Directive, the Proposal is not the same as the Directive. Thus, there is no Rule which would require a Proposal of the sort defined in my statement (i.e. with one or more Currency Directives, and possibly other Directives and Rule Changes that do not require the Proposal to have an AI greater than 1) to have an AI greater than 1. Thus, by Rule 594, such a Proposal has an AI of 1. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- References: 1. Rule 1466 2. Rule 594 3. Rule 993 ======1. Rule 1466 Rule 1466/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Currency Directives There is a type of Directive, called a Currency Directive. These Directives have an Adoption Index of 2. If adopted, they have the effect of specifying the Currency holdings contained in an Entity or Entities' Treasury or Treasuries. They may have no other effects. History: Created by Proposal 1596, Jun. 2 1995 ======2. Rule 594 Rule 594/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Proposals and Rule Changes A Proposal may contain one or more Rule Changes. If a Proposal containing Rule Changes is adopted, the Rule Changes contained in the Proposal shall take effect in the order they appear in the Proposal. The Adoption Index of a Proposal shall be the least Index which is not less than the minimum Adoption Index which would allow all the Rule Changes within the Proposal to take effect. This paragraph yields to any Rule which may require a higher Adoption Index for a given Proposal. In no case may a Proposal have an Adoption Index of less than 1. History: .. Amended(1) by Proposal 1323, Nov. 21 1994 ======3. Rule 993 Rule 993/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Directives A Proposal may contain one or more Directives. A Directive, if adopted, causes some change in the Game State other than changing a Rule. No Directive may change any Rule. Only those Directives which are defined by the Rules may be placed in a Proposal. If a Proposal containing Directives is adopted, the Directives shall take effect in the order that they appear in the Proposal, and according to the Rule or Rule which define the type of each Directive in question. The Adoption Index of a Proposal containing a Directive must be at least as great as that required by the Rule or Rules which define the type of Directive contained in the Proposal. Any Proposal for which this is not true is not properly made. History: .. Amended(1) by Proposal 1330, Nov. 22 1994 ====================================================================== Judgement: UNDECIDABLE Argument: This is really unfortunate, but a mistake in the phrasing of this CFJ has meant that the obvious intent of the statement has been completely neutralised. The ruleset does not discuss whether or not Proposals have Mutability Indices. It is clear that rules do (see 1021), but the interesting Index attached to Proposals is Adoption Index. The submitted argument accompanying the statement makes it clear that this was the intention. I urge the caller of this CFJ to correct their mistake, and resubmit. The rules do not say that Proposals don't have an MI, but if they do we can't know anything about them.. Michael. ====================================================================== Andre From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Wed Jun 28 04:36:50 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id EAA01206 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 04:25:46 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id CAA12322 for nomic-official-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 02:25:04 -0700 Received: from wing1.wing.rug.nl (wing1.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.1]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id CAA12289 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 02:24:58 -0700 Message-Id: <199506280924.CAA12289@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing1.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA23139; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 11:26:01 +0200 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Judgement CFJ 770 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Wed, 28 Jun 95 11:26:00 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ASSIGNMENT OF CFJ 770 (By the Rules, Swann could not assume the office of...) ====================================================================== Judgement: Judge: Kelly (defaulted) Chuck Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Dave Bowen, elJefe, Ian, JonRock Michael, TaL, Vanyel, Xanadu Not Eligible: Swann: Caller KoJen, Steve, Vlad(?): On Hold Blob: Rule 1005 Coren, Pascal: On Hold & 1005 Kelly: defaulted Effects: Kelly looses 10 Points for defaulting Judgement Chuck receives 3 Points for timely ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called by Swann Jun 13 1995, 02:40 EST Assigned to Kelly Jun 13 1995, 11:01 UTC Defaulted by Kelly Jun 20 1995, 11:01 UTC Re-assigned to Chuck, Jun 22 1995, 10:50 UTC Judged TRUE by Chuck, Jun 28 1995, 01:24 -0500 (CDT) ####################################################################### Statement: "By the Rules, Swann could not assume the office of Tabulator while also performing the duties of Herald. Since Swann did not resign the Heraldship, Swann did not assume the Office of Tabulator. The Office of Tabulator is therefore vacant, and has been since the resignation of the previous Tabulator." ####################################################################### Argument: Frankly, this is so blatantly obvious that I am embarrassed that I offered to take the office. However, that embarrassment is somewhat moderated by the fact that I seem to be the first person to notice the current wording Rule 1436, to wit: "Let there be the Office of Tabulator. A vacant Office of Tabulator is filled in the usual manner, but the Scorekeepor or Herald may not become Tabulator, nor may the Tabulator become Scorekeepor or Herald." Since I was Herald, I couldn't legally accept the Office when I said I did, and my Tabulator's Reports were therefore unofficial and legally void. As to what this did, if anything, to Kelly's Blot erasure and the subsequent end of the Game, will await a further CFJ. ====================================================================== Judgement: I Judge this Statement to be TRUE. Reasons and Arguments: The facts of this case are not in dispute: --On May 19, Pascal was Tabulator and Swann was Herald. --On May 20, Pascal sent a message to the Public Forum in which he resigned the office of Tabulator, attempting to transfer it to Swann. Shortly thereafter, Swann posted a message acknowledging his willingness to serve as Tabulator. At first, Rule 1436 seems to prohibit this; it says "...the Scorekeepor or Herald may not become Tabulator." But we must also consider Rule 880. It says, "if at the time e resigns e appoints a successor, then the designated successor, if consenting, will fill the Office." If it turns out that Pascal *did* appoint a successor, then Rule 880 takes precedence over 1436, and Swann did fill the Office of Tabulator in spite of 1436. Thus, the question hangs on whether Pascal's attempt to name Swann as successor was in fact appointing a successor. There are two possible interpretations: 1. Pascal's message does qualify as "appointing a successor," and 880 takes precedence over 1436, and Swann fills the Office of Tabulator. 2. Pascal's message, due to Rule 1436, does not qualify as appointing a successor, and thus there is no conflict--no successor was appointed. I can find no strong, convincing argument in favor of either. As far as I know, no similar situation has every arisen and thus Game Custom is silent. Nor, IMO, does "the Spirit of the Game" speak on this issue. Thus, I must use my own judgement. It seems to me that the most natural interpretation of "appointing a successor" is "naming someone eligible to serve in that Office." Thus, since by Rule 1436, Swann could not succeed Pascal in the Office of Tabulator while he still held the Office of Herald, Pascal's message does *not* constitute appointing a successor. Appointing a successor is not a prerequisite for resignation of an Office; so although Pascal's message was invalid as far as appointing a successor goes, it is still valid regarding his resignation. Thus, Pascal resigned the Office of Tabulator on May 20, leaving no successor, and the Office has been vacant ever since. ####################################################################### Refrences: ---------------------------------------- Rule 1436/1 (Mutable, MI=1) The Tabulator Let there be the Office of Tabulator. A vacant Office of Tabulator is filled in the usual manner, but the Scorekeepor or Herald may not become Tabulator, nor may the Tabulator become Scorekeepor or Herald." The Tabulator is the Officer responsible for keeping track of the Blots possessed by each Player, as well as all ex-Players who have Blots. The Tabulator may have other duties as defined in the Rules. Once a Week The Tabulator shall post to the Public Forum a report of the Blots held by each Player. If a Player has earned Blots since the last report, this report must publicize the reason for the gain in Blots. The Tabulator's salary shall be four Points per Week. If any Rule mandates a change in Blots, but does not also specifically state the Player who is Legally Responsible for detecting the change and reporting it to the Tabulator, then the change in Blots is canceled. If a Blot change is not reported within four Weeks of its occurrence, or by the end of the Game in which it occurred, whichever is sooner, the change in Blots is cancelled. History: Created by Proposal 1457, Mar. 1 1995 Amended(1) by Proposal 1494, Mar. 15 1995 ---------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Additional Evidence: 1. Rule 880 2. Excerpts from the Registrar's report of May 19 3. Pascal's message of May 20 4. Swann's message of May 20 (Most of the header information of (3) and (4) has been deleted in the interest of bandwidth, but can be provided upon request.) ===1. Rule 880 Rule 880/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Resignation of Offices An Officer may resign eir Office at any time either by a message to the Public Forum, or by going On Hold, or as otherwise specified in the Rules. When an Officer resigns eir Office, e ceases to fill that Office. If an Officer resigns during the Voting Period for a Proposal containing a Directive to install another player in that Office, then the Player thus proposed, if consenting, will fill the Office. Otherwise, if at the time e resigns e appoints a successor, then the designated successor, if consenting, will fill the Office. If there is no appointed or proposed successor, or if e does not consent to fill the Office, then the Office becomes vacant. No player who is "On Hold" may fill an Office. If an Officer goes On Hold then e automatically resigns all eir Offices. History: .. Amended(1) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995 ===2. Excerpts from the Registrar's Report of May 19 ==== AGORA NOMIC REGISTRAR'S REPORTS========================================= DATE OF LAST REPORT : 95.05.10 DATE OF THIS REPORT : 95.05.19 ===== 3.0 BLUE PAGES ========================================================= Herald : Swann Tabulator : Pascal ===3. Pascal's message of May 20 From: BlsPascal@aol.com Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 10:25:19 -0400 To: nomic-business@teleport.com Subject: BUS: Tablulator Transfer I hereby resign as Tabulator and name Swann as my successor... ---Pascal ===4. Swann's message of May 20 Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 20:28:08 -0400 From: gb485@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven A Swiniarski) To: nomic-business@teleport.com Subject: Re: BUS: Tablulator Transfer Reply to message from BlsPascal@aol.com of Sat, 20 May > >I hereby resign as Tabulator and name Swann as my successor... >---Pascal > > I hereby re-affirm my willingness to become Tabulator. Swann -- Steven Swiniarski (aka S Andrew Swann) gb485@cleveland.freenet.edu Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship. --Harry S Truman ====================================================================== Andre From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Fri Jun 23 03:29:50 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id DAA11616 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 03:18:04 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id BAA22384 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 01:17:30 -0700 Received: from wing1.wing.rug.nl (wing1.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.1]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA22367 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 01:17:23 -0700 Message-Id: <199506230817.BAA22367@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing1.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA16416; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 10:18:38 +0200 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Final Judgement CFJ 771 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 10:18:37 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO JUDGEMENT UPON APPEAL OF CFJ 771 (Swann was not Tabulator when Kelly spent 5 points...) ====================================================================== Judgement: TRUE Judgement of Speaker: FALSE Judgement of CotC: UNKNOWN Judgement of pro-Justiciar: FALSE, TRUE and UNDECIDABLE Final Judgement: UNKNOWN Judge: Ian Justices: Speaker: Kelly CotC: Andre pro-Justiciar:TAL (replaces Steve) Eligible: Andre, Dave Bowen, elJefe, Ian, JonRock, Kelly. Michael, TaL, Vanyel, Xanadu Not Eligible: Swann: Caller KoJen, Steve, Vlad(?): On Hold Blob: Rule 1005 Coren, Pascal: On Hold & 1005 Chuck: Declined Changes due to this CFJ: * Chuck looses 2 points for declining, one of which goes to Andre. * Kelly's move of Winning the Game is retracted * All players have eir scores reset to what they were prior to the mistaken end of the game * Ian gains 5 points, and looses 2 Blots, or the number of Blots he has in excess of 1, whichever is less, for speedy Judgement. * Ian looses 5 points for being overturned * Kelly gains 5 points for speedy Judgement * Andre gains 3 points for timely Judgement * TAL gains 3 points for timely Judgement Remark of CotC: I haven't checked the Rules yet on whether TAL's step of giving 3 different Judgements is legal. However, in my opinion, even if it is illegal it is still the Judgement he gave, so I am obliged as CotC to distribute it this way. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called by Swann, Jun 13 1995, 02:40 EST Assigned to Chuck, Jun 13 1995, 11:01 UTC Declined by Chuck, Jun 13 1995, 06:59 CST Re-assigned to Ian, Jun 13 1995, 12:15 UTC Judged TRUE by Ian, Jun 15 1995, 9:19 -0700 Appealed by elJefe, Jun 15 1995, 12:49 -0400 Appealed by Kelly, Jun 15 1995, 12:06 EST5 Appealed by KoJen, Jun 15 1995, 13:00 -0400 Assigned to Kelly as Speaker, Jun 16 1995, 09:44 UTC Assigned to Andre as CotC, Jun 16 1995, 09:44 UTC Assigned to Steve as Justiciar, Jun 16 1995, 09:44 UTC Judged FALSE by Kelly, Jun 19 1995, 03:18 EST5 Delegated to TAL as pro-Justiciar, Jun 19 1995, 19:59 +1000 (EST) Judged UNKNOWN by Andre, Jun 19 1995, 15:15 UTC Judged TRUE by TAL, Jun 21 1995, 13:20 SET Judged FALSE by TAL, Jun 21 1995, 13:21 SET Judged UNDECIDABLE by TAL, Jun 21 1995, 13:21 SET ####################################################################### Statement: "Swann was not Tabulator when Kelly spent 5 points to erase a Blot, so Swann could not legally remove Kelly's Blot. The Speaker was not acting in the Tabulator's capacity at this time, so the Blot was not erased, and Kelly has not yet won the game." ###################################################################### Arguments: I mistakenly accepted the Tabulatorship when it wasn't legally possible for me to do so. (First paragraph of 1436 and my prior CFJ) This means that, for the past three weeks or so, the office of Tabulator has been vacant. Now, Rule 806/1 mandates that the Speaker performs the duties of vacant Offices. However, this does not change the fact that, because everyone assumed my Tabulatorship to be valid, that the Speaker *did not* perform those duties while the Office was vacant. The Speaker did not produce the Tabulator reports, and, more importantly, the Speaker-- who by law was the only person who was able to-- did not record any changes in the status of Blots in the game. This disctinction is important because of the explicit wording of Rule 1440/0: "If there are sufficient Points, the Scorekeepor reduces the Player's Points by the required amount and the Tabulator reduces the Player's Blots as requested." The phrase here is unambiguious-- "the Tabulator reduces the Player's Blots" -- This rule states clearly that it is the person acting in the Office of Tabulator who reduces the Blots. The Blot is not gone until the Tabulator acts, confirming the message. Therefore, Kelly's Blot erasure cannot happen until someone who is able to legally act as Tabulator confirms the erasure and publishes a legally valid Tabulator report. Since Blots prevent a Player from winning the game, (Rule 1435/0) Kelly has not yet won the game, nor has the game yet ended. ######################################################################## Requested Injunction: That Kelly's move of Winning the Game is retracted, and all players have their scores reset to what they were prior to the mistaken end of the game. ######################################################################## Argument of Judge: The arguments provided by Swann regarding this CFJ are clear precise and leave little room for argument. First, Swann took on the position of Tabulator, which was an illegal move by Rule 1436/1. Now, 1436/1 also says that "The Tabulator is the Officer responsible for keeping track of the Blots possessed by each Player, as well as all ex-Players who have Blots. The Tabulator may have other duties as defined in the rules." Note that it does not say that the Tabulator is the one adding or removing Blots from Players, only that e keeps track of Players' Blots. But it also says that e may have other duties. Other Rules that state that a Player Gains or Loses Blot(s) state just that. For example, Rule 452/4 states (in part) "If a Call for Judgment alleging a violation of this rule is found to be TRUE, the Assessor violating this rule shall gain three (3) Blots. Reporting this gain to the Tabulator is the responsibility of the Player who called the CFJ." In this Rule, "the Assessor ... shall gain 3 Blots". No doubt about it. Now on to the particulars. Rule 1440/0 says (in part) that "If there are sufficient Points, the Scorekeepor reduces the Player's Points by the required amount and the Tabulator reduces the Player's Blots as requested." It is the Tabulator eirself that is reducing the Blots. Since the Office was vacant, this could not have taken place. Any other Blot Gains or Losses during Swann's "reign" would have to be examined to determine whether or not they happened or not. However, I have no jurisdiction over those. I may only uphold Swann's Injuction: "Kelly's move of Winning the Game is retracted, and all players have eir scores reset to what they were prior to the mistaken end of the game." I would like to point out, though, that Rule 665/0, which describes Injunctions to Retract an Illegal Move, doesn't allow me to take away the Points that Swann earned as Tabulator. I would recommend that this be fixed. #################################################################### Judgement of Speaker: I hereby overturn Ian's Ruling and find this CFJ FALSE. I concur that Swann was, in fact, not Tabulator on 3 June, when Kelly erased eir Blot. Also, I concur that Swann had no power on that date to erase any of Kelly's Blots, as that power is only granted to Kelly, per Rule 1440/0. The statement implies a causal connection which is not present, but nonetheless the first statement in the Statement is true. However, the second statement is not true. First, we do not know if the Speaker was acting in the Tabulator's capacity; all we can tell from the evidence before us is that the Speaker was not diligently performing the duties required of him by Rule 806/1. He may have been acting in the Tabulator's capacity in a haphazard and negligent way. however, the claim that Kelly's Blot was not erased is FALSE. it is here that this CFJ falls down. Rule 1440 is internally inconsistent; it claims alternatively that a Player can erase eir own Blots, and then later claims that only the Tabulator can do so. Since the Rules are unresolvably inconsistent, I am instructed by Rule 217/0 to consider Game Custom and the Spirit of the Game in determining my Judgement. In almost every case, Officers do not effect changes in Game Quantities; they merely record them. Since the first paragraph of 1440/0 is consistent with this Custom, it is my belief that the instructions to the Scorekeepor and Tabulator in the fourth paragraph of 1440/0 are merely instructing the Scorekeepor and Tabulator to perform their bookkeeping duties of recognizing the events which took place upon the action of the Player as dictated by the first and second paragraphs of the Rule. Since Kelly did perform all the actions required of her by these two paragraphs, it is my ruling that she did, in fact, Erase her one remaining Blot on 3 June. Since Kelly was Immaculate on 12 June when she acquired a total of 214 Points, 4 more than she needed to win, she did legally win the game on that date. Hence, both the second and third clauses of the second statement in the Statement are FALSE; therefore, the second statement is FALSE, and therefore the entire Statement itself is FALSE. I recommend and, should my fellow Justices concur, order, that Judge Ian's Injunction be vacated. Submitted this 16th day of June, 1995, Kelly Martin Justice of the Appellate Court of Agora Nomic ######################################################################## Argument of CotC: I overturn the judge, and find the statement UNKNOWN The important point in this CFJ lies, of course, in Rule 1440. At least, as far as I can tell noone denies the fact that at the time Kelly tried to erase her Blot the Speaker served as acting Tabulator. The question is: Who erases the Blots according to this Rule and when? The caller claims that the phrase "If there are sufficient Points, the Scorekeepor reduces the Player's Points by the required amount, and the Tabulator reduces the Player's Blots as requested." implies that it is the Tabulator who does so. The Judge agreed with him, and as there was no Tabulator at the time, claimed this could not have happened. Before I go to the main thread of my Judgement, I will first show another error in this line of reasoning. There WAS a Tabulator at the time Kelly tried to make her transfer. As Rule 806 shows, the Speaker (which was me at the time) should fulfill all duties of an Office which is vacant. Therefore if Claimant and Judge are right the Speaker (that is me) should have removed the Blot. Did I? Well, I don't know. It depends on what one defines to be the act of removing. However, it is NOT in the act of publishing a Blot report. Therefore the absence of Blot Reports does NOT imply that the Blot has not been removed. So there is, even in this case, no evidence that would support a Judgement of 'TRUE'. The Judgement should have been 'UNKNOWN'. There are even factors that could imply that I had removed the Blot. At the very least my actions afterwards imply I regarded the Blot as having been erased. However, there is more. Rule 1440 consists of more lines than the quoted ones. It starts with saying: "A Player may Erase eir Blots by spending five Points for each Blot Erased. A Player may Erase any number of Blots as long as e does not reduce eir Point total below zero. A Player with less than five Points may not Erase Blots." So according to this Paragraph it is the PLAYER who erased the Blots. And that is independent of whether or not there is a Tabulator, or who it is. However, the Rule goes on: "The Player Erasing Blots must report to the Tabulator and the Scorekeepor the number of Blots e is Erasing, and the Points required to do so." Kelly sent a message to nomic-business with the following text: "i hereby expend five points to erase one blot. as scorekeepor i assert that i have five points to expend." I hereby ascertain that I (at that time acting Tabulator) received this message. I also have no reason to doubt that Kelly herself did receive it. So still there is no problem. On with the following Paragraph. "If this requires more Points than the Player has at the time of the request, then no Blots are erased, and no Points are lost." As far as I know Kelly had the number of Points needed, being 5. Now the Paragraph which caused the troubles appears: "If there are sufficient Points, the Scorekeepor reduces the Player's Points by the required amount and the Tabulator reduces the Player's Blots as requested." Here indeed it says it is the Tabulator reduces the Player's number of Blots. As notified before this makes Rule 1440 have an internal contradiction. We here have a case where the Rules are inconsistent or unclear. So now it is time to put 217 in the Picture. I should now apply Game Custom and the Spirit of the Game. I regard them both quite silent on the matter, however. So I am allowed to apply other standards. And I think judging it to be the Player who reduces the number of Blots and the number of Points, is the one that comes closest to the Rule 1440 as it is. However, the difference is small and so there is something else I will take into account: I think it is a good thing to, as a Justice, follow the Judge if the differences are this small. We are here (partly) to judge the Judge's decision, which with differences this small is perfectly sensible, although it wouldn't have been mine. So the situation is such: 1440 has 2 interpretations, namely one where the Player who erases the Blots lowers the number of Blots, and one where it is the Tabulator who does so. If I had been judge myself I would have judged FALSE as I favor the first opinion, however I am willing to follow the Judge in stating the second one, thus still arriving to 'UNKNOWN' instead of 'TRUE'. Andre Engels, CotC in the Court of Appeal of Agora Nomic. ====================================================================== Argument of pro-Justiciar (part 1): Note that nothing in the Rules forbids me to issue more than one Judgment. Here is number 1: Judgment: TRUE Arguments: I take the liberty to cut immediately to the heart of the matter, the interpretation of 1440. At first sight, it seems that the Blot Erasing Rule 1440 is contradictory. It says: "A Player may Erase eir Blots ..." and "...the Tabulator reduces the Player's Blots as requested." The first phrase states that it is the Player's Move that accomplishes the Erasure (Kelly's view) and the second that it is the Tabulator who does the Disappearing act (Swann's view). However, I prefer the viewpoint that erasing a Blot requires at present two actions: - the 5 point payment by the Player - the subsequent check of the possibility of this payment followed by the Blot destruction of the (acting) Tabulator. This means that this Rule does it differently than most other `recordkeeping' Rules, where the Officers are merely bookkeepers of other Players actions. While this might be undesirable in my view, it is not a priori excluded that such a Rule exist. The next question to answer is therefore: was somebody doing the duties of Tabulator? We all agree by now that Swann was not Tabulator on June 3, as 1436 forbids this. Therefore the duties fall to the Speaker (Rule 806). Hence within a week after June 3 a Tabulator's report should have appeared, posted by Speaker Andre, mentioning the Blot Erasure. No such report did. Hence, the conclusion of the statement, that the Blot was not erased and that Kelly did not win the Game are true, as well. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgement of pro-Justiciar, part 2: Note that nothing in the Rules forbids me to issue more than one Judgment. Here is number 2: Judgment: FALSE Arguments: Let's first parse the statement: 1) Swann was not Tabulator when Kelly spent 5 points to erase a Blot. 2) Swann could not legally remove Kelly's Blot. 3) The Speaker was not acting in the Tabulator's capacity at this time 4) the Blot was not erased 5) Kelly has not yet won the game All of these five parts have to be TRUE for the statement to be TRUE. I think that by now we all agree that 1) is TRUE. I'll skip 2) for the moment. 3) is rather interesting. I suppose we agree that Andre was *not* doing the duties of Tabulator: he issued no reports, for instance. However, 806 gives him another legal possibilty: "The Speaker may delegate [the duties of a vacant Office] to a willing Player if e desires." This statement is there without any further precision on how this transfer of duties takes place. Is it via a posting? Not necessarily. In the case at hand it seems to have been by mutual and silent consent: for all practical purposes Swann was doing the duties of Tabulator and Andre wasn't. (Side note: nothing forbids the Herald to perform the duties of Tabulator. 1436 forbids only that both Offices are combined in the same Player.) We therefore have to conclude that Swann *was* indeed doing the duties of Tabulator. This brings us to the most interesting part: can and did Swann legally remove Kelly's Blot? It comes down to the question whether the Tabulator (or its delegate in this case) is a passive recordkeepor of the Blots erased or that the erasure requires an active Move of eir part. At first sight, it seems to me that the Blot Erasing Rule 1440 is contradictory. It says: "A Player may Erase eir Blots ..." and "...the Tabulator reduces the Player's Blots as requested." The first phrase states that it is the Player's Move that accomplishes the Erasure (Kelly's view) and the second that it is the Tabulator who does the Disappearing act (Swann's view). However, I prefer the viewpoint that erasing a Blot requires at present two actions: - the 5 point payment by the Player - the subsequent check of the possibility of this payment followed by the Blot destruction of the (acting) Tabulator. As I established that Swann was acting Tabulator and as Kelly made the 5 Point payment, I conclude that 2) is TRUE. Consequently 4) the Blot was not erased is a FALSE statement, making the whole statement FALSE. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgement of pro-Justiciar, part 3: Note that nothing in the Rules forbids me to issue more than one Judgment. Here is number 3: Judgment: UNDECIDABLE Arguments: It seems to me that the Blot Erasing Rule 1440 is contradictory. It says: "A Player may Erase eir Blots ..." and "...the Tabulator reduces the Player's Blots as requested." The first phrase states that it is the Player's Move that accomplishes the Erasure (Kelly's view) and the second that it is the Tabulator who does the Disappearing act (Swann's view). If Swann's view prevails then it is obvious that the Blot was never erased, because the Speaker (the acting Tabulator at the time) didn't do anything of that nature. Hence the contradiction in 1440 leads directly to the logical undecidability of the statement, that the Blot was erased. ######################################################################## References: Blot Erasure Message-------------------- Date: Fri, 2 Jun 95 22:13:01 EST5 From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin) To: gb485@cleveland.freenet.edu Cc: nomic-business@teleport.com Subject: blot erasure i hereby expend five points to erase one blot. as scorekeepor i assert that i have five points to expend. k. -- kelly martin How can Republicans ask Americans to take responsibility for personal actions when they refuse to take responsibility for their own? -- Laurence L. Kriv, of Garland, TX (ltr to editor, _Dallas Morning News_) ---------------------------------------- Rule 806/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Speaker Performs Duties of Vacant Offices While an Office is vacant, and until it is filled as provided in other rules, the Speaker shall fulfill the duties of that Office. The Speaker may delegate those duties to a willing Player if e desires. The Player fulfilling the duties of that Office is compensated in the same manner as if e actually held that Office. This Rule applies to Offices in general, and defers to the Rules for specific Offices. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1510, Mar. 24 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 1435/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Definition of Blots and Immaculate Let there be an Entity called a Blot. At all times all Players possess an integral number of Blots equal to or greater than zero. Any Player with zero Blots is referred to as Immaculate. Any new Player, or a Player with no recorded Blots, shall be Immaculate. Blots may never be transferred between Players. A Player who is not Immaculate can't Win the Game. This Rule takes precedence over any other rule defining who is eligible to Win. History: Created by Proposal 1457, Mar. 1 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 1436/1 (Mutable, MI=1) The Tabulator Let there be the Office of Tabulator. A vacant Office of Tabulator is filled in the usual manner, but the Scorekeepor or Herald may not become Tabulator, nor may the Tabulator become Scorekeepor or Herald." The Tabulator is the Officer responsible for keeping track of the Blots possessed by each Player, as well as all ex-Players who have Blots. The Tabulator may have other duties as defined in the Rules. Once a Week The Tabulator shall post to the Public Forum a report of the Blots held by each Player. If a Player has earned Blots since the last report, this report must publicize the reason for the gain in Blots. The Tabulator's salary shall be four Points per Week. If any Rule mandates a change in Blots, but does not also specifically state the Player who is Legally Responsible for detecting the change and reporting it to the Tabulator, then the change in Blots is canceled. If a Blot change is not reported within four Weeks of its occurrence, or by the end of the Game in which it occurred, whichever is sooner, the change in Blots is cancelled. History: Created by Proposal 1457, Mar. 1 1995 Amended(1) by Proposal 1494, Mar. 15 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 1440/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Erasing Blots A Player may Erase eir Blots by spending five Points for each Blot Erased. A Player may Erase any number of Blots as long as e does not reduce eir Point total below zero. A Player with less than five Points may not Erase Blots. The Player Erasing Blots must report to the Tabulator and the Scorekeepor the number of Blots e is Erasing, and the Points required to do so. If this requires more Points than the Player has at the time of the request, then no Blots are erased, and no Points are lost. If there are sufficient Points, the Scorekeepor reduces the Player's Points by the required amount and the Tabulator reduces the Player's Blots as requested. Other rules may define additional methods of Erasing Blots. History: Created by Proposal 1461, Mar. 1 1995 ---------------------------------------- ###################################################################### Extra references added by the Judge: Rule 452/4 (Mutable, MI=1) No Electioneering by the Assessor The Assessor may not use knowledge of the current status of the vote on a Proposal which has come into eir possession because e is the Assessor, in an attempt to influence the result of the vote on that Proposal. If a Call for Judgment alleging a violation of this rule is found to be TRUE, the Assessor violating this rule shall gain three (3) Blots. Reporting this gain to the Tabulator is the responsibility of the Player who called the CFJ. ------------------------------ Rule 665/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Injunction--Retracting an Illegal Move If a CFJ alleges that a specific Move is illegal, and the Judgement supports the allegation, the Judge may include with the Judgement an Injunction specifying that the move is to be retracted, and any resulting adjustments to the published game state. The adjustments to the game state must have been unambiguously specified within the CFJ, and these adjustments must only undo actions which were a direct or indirect result of that Move. ------------------------------ ********************************************************************** References added by the Justices: Rule 217: (added by Speaker and CotC) ---------------------------------------- Rule 217/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Judgements Must Accord with the Rules All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider Game Custom and the Spirit of the Game before applying other standards. History: Initial Mutable Rule 217, Jun. 30 1993 ---------------------------------------- Andre From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Mon Jun 19 04:59:44 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id EAA03882 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 04:55:24 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id CAA10290 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 02:54:59 -0700 Received: from wing2.wing.rug.nl (wing2.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.2]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id CAA10285 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 02:54:55 -0700 From: csg419@wing.rug.nl Message-Id: <199506190954.CAA10285@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing2.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA10464; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 11:54:42 +0200 Subject: OFF: Judgement CFJ 772 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Mon, 19 Jun 95 11:54:42 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO JUDGEMENT CFJ 772 (Player Swann committed an illegal act...) ====================================================================== Judge: Dave Bowen Judgement: FALSE Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Dave Bowen, elJefe, JonRock, KoJen, Michael, Steve, Vanyel, Xanadu Caller: Kelly Not Eligible: Kelly (caller) Swann, Ian, Troublemaker At Large (barred) Blob (1005) Coren, Pascal (1005 & On Hold) Point changes: Dave Bowen gains 5 points for speedy judgement ====================================================================== History: Called by Kelly, Jun 15 1995, 12:35 EST Assigned to Dave Bowen, Jun 16 1995, 10:01 UTC Judged FALSE by Dave Bowen, Jun 16 1995, 12:12 UTC ====================================================================== Statement: "Player Swann committed an illegal act by submitting the CFJ 711." ====================================================================== Requested Injunction: I request that if this CFJ is found TRUE that Swann be ordered to submit a Formal Apology in accordance with Rule 908/3. ====================================================================== Argument: The Statement of Swann's CFJ, in part, alleges that the Published Game State is incorrect, in that it alleges that Kelly has not yet won the Game. However, a CFJ which alleges that the Game State is incorrect may only be made if a prior Claim of Error has been made and either denied or ignored. Since this has not happened, Swann's act of making this CFJ was in violation of Rule 1431/1. ====================================================================== Decision: FALSE ====================================================================== Reasoning: CFJ 711 was not submitted by Swann. (see attachment) ====================================================================== Evidence: I. Rule 1431/1 II. Statement of CFJ 771 -------I. Rule 1431/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Claims of Error If a Player, hereafter called the Claimant, believes any official report or document to contain an error, e shall post to the Public Forum a statement that e believes the report to be in error, specifying the nature of the error, and requesting the Player responsible for the document, hereafter called the Respondant, to correct the error. The Respondant shall immediately investigate the claim of error, and, as soon as possible after the posting of the claim, either admit the claim and issue an official correction to the document, or deny the claim. Such admission or denial shall be posted to the Public Forum. If and only if the Respondant does not admit the claim, the Claimant may, within one week of the posted denial (or the expiration of any prescribed time limit for the Respondant's response), make a Call for Judgement alleging the document to be in error. If the Respondant does not admit the claim and a subsequent Call for Judgement finds that the claim is true, the Respondant shall lose 5 points. The Claimant is responsible for reporting this score change when it occurs. There is no penalty under this Rule if the Respondant admits the claim and corrects the error without a Call for Judgement having been made. A claim is illegal and may not be made if: a) another claim has previously been made alleging the same error, unless this prior claim was not admitted and the time limit to make a CFJ has expired; b) the document containing the error was published more than 21 days prior to the claim; or c) the Player making the claim is the same as the Player responsible for the document alleged to be in error. d) the report in error has been superceded by another report. For the purpose of this Rule, an "offical report or document" is any report or document which an Officer (or the Speaker) is required to maintain by the Rules in the course of eir duties as that Officer (or as Speaker), and an "error" is the omission or inclusion of any information which causes the official report or document to allege that the Game State is in any way different than it actually is. No Call for Judgement may be made alleging that a document contains errors except as prescribed in this Rule. This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which might allow a Call for Judgement prohibited by this Rule to be made, or which might prohibit a Call for Judgement permitted by the Rule from being made. History: Created by Proposal 1431, Feb. 7 1995 Amended(1) by Proposal 1491, Mar. 15 1995 ---------------------------------------- -------II. "Swann was not Tabulator when Kelly spent 5 points to erase a Blot, so Swann could not legally remove Kelly's Blot. The Speaker was not acting in the Tabulator's capacity at this time, so the Blot was not erased, and Kelly has not yet won the game." ====================================================================== Extra evidence, added by Judge: ================= Judgement: CFJ 711 ================= Caller: Lee Judge: Quantum Walrus (Waggie) Judgement: TRUE Injunction Granted: NO Barred: None Date Called: 10/26/94 Date Judged: 10/28/94 Statement: The Group Votes cast by the former Group PROSIRUP on the Proposals which they voted upon were invalid and should have been ignored. Andre From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Fri Jun 16 09:44:37 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA19542 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 09:40:10 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id HAA22828 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 07:39:37 -0700 Received: from wing1.wing.rug.nl (wing1.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.1]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id HAA22793 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 07:39:26 -0700 Message-Id: <199506161439.HAA22793@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing1.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA21275; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 16:40:42 +0200 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Judgement CFJ774 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Fri, 16 Jun 95 16:40:42 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO JUDGEMENT CFJ 774 (Kelly is not the Clerk of the Courts) ====================================================================== Judge: Dave Bowen Judgement: TRUE Eligible: Chuck, Dave Bowen, elJefe, Ian, JonRock, KoJen, Michael, Steve, Troublemaker At Large, Vanyel, Xanadu Caller: Swann Not Eligible: Swann (caller) Andre, Kelly (barred) Blob (1005) Coren, Pascal (1005 & On Hold) Point changes: Dave B. gains 5 points for Speedy Judgement ====================================================================== History: Called by Swann, June 16 1995, 01:54 -0400 Assigned to Dave Bowen, June 16 1995, 09:18 UTC Judged TRUE by Dave Bowen, June 16 1995, 09:31 -0500 ######################################################################## Arguments: Yet another obvious point that needs to be made, to wit, Kelly's message to the Public Forum, Tue, 13 Jun 95 02:37:56 EST5, and I quote: "with Andre's consent, i hereby transfer the Office of Clerk of the Courts to him." The only conditional in this sentence is that Andre consent to the transfer of the Office. I quote Andre's message to the Public Forum: "I hereby publicly confirm my consent." Therefore, from Rule 880/1: "An Officer may resign eir Office at any time either by a message to the Public Forum, or by going On Hold, or as otherwise specified in the Rules. When an Officer resigns eir Office, e ceases to fill that Office." Therefore, when Kelly posted the message to the Public Form, stating eir (implicit) resignation, Kelly ceased to be Clerk of Courts. Any other legal controversy surrounding the End of the Game, or the transition of Speaker, does not apply here. Andre may, or may not, be Clerk-- but the Rules are unambiguous on the point that Kelly is *not* the Clerk. ##################################################################### Reasoning of Judge: Decision: TRUE Reasoning: Kelly posted her resignation as Clerk of the Courts, conditional on Andre's consent, to the Public Forum. Andre posted his consent to the Public Forum. Thus, the requirements for resignation of office, as specified in Rule 880/1, were met and the office of Clerk of the Courts was transferred from Kelly to Andre. Since there has been no succeeding transfer of this office back to Kelly, Kelly is not the Clerk of the Courts at the time this CFJ was submitted. ##################################################################### References: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 02:37:56 EST5 From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin) Subject: OFF: New CotC To: nomic-official@teleport.com Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com "Andre" == Andre Engels writes: Andre> Kelly is now Speaker. This announcement is made in accordance Andre> with step 3 of Rule 402/1. Rule 1450/0 requires that i transfer the Clerkship within one week of becoming Speaker. with Andre's consent, i hereby transfer the Office of Clerk of the Courts to him. k. -- kelly martin There are members of any legislative body who can be differentiated from streetlights only because their noses don't light up. -- Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 9:56:03 METDST From: csg419@wing.rug.nl (Andre Engels) Subject: BUS: Re: OFF: New CotC To: nomic-business@teleport.com Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com > > "Andre" == Andre Engels writes: > > Andre> Kelly is now Speaker. This announcement is made in accordance > Andre> with step 3 of Rule 402/1. > > Rule 1450/0 requires that i transfer the Clerkship within one week of > becoming Speaker. with Andre's consent, i hereby transfer the Office > of Clerk of the Courts to him. > > k. > -- > kelly martin > > There are members of any legislative body who can be differentiated from > streetlights only because their noses don't light up. > -- Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) > > I hereby publicly confirm my consent. Andre ---------------------------------------- Rule 880/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Resignation of Offices An Officer may resign eir Office at any time either by a message to the Public Forum, or by going On Hold, or as otherwise specified in the Rules. When an Officer resigns eir Office, e ceases to fill that Office. If an Officer resigns during the Voting Period for a Proposal containing a Directive to install another player in that Office, then the Player thus proposed, if consenting, will fill the Office. Otherwise, if at the time e resigns e appoints a successor, then the designated successor, if consenting, will fill the Office. If there is no appointed or proposed successor, or if e does not consent to fill the Office, then the Office becomes vacant. No player who is "On Hold" may fill an Office. If an Officer goes On Hold then e automatically resigns all eir Offices. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andre From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Fri Jun 23 03:59:46 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id DAA12317 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 03:52:46 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id BAA25251 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 01:52:23 -0700 Received: from wing1.wing.rug.nl (wing1.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.1]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA25241 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 01:52:15 -0700 Message-Id: <199506230852.BAA25241@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing1.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA17647; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 10:52:47 +0200 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Judgement CFJ 775 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 10:52:47 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO JUDGMENT OF CFJ 775 (The Clerk of the Courts violated Rule 1431/1...) ###################################################################### Judge: Zefram Judgement: FALSE Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Dave Bowen, elJefe, Ian, JonRock, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Steve, SugarWater, TAL, Vanyel, Xanadu, Zefram Caller: Swann Not Eligible: Swann (caller) Blob (1005) Coren, Pascal (1005 & On Hold) Effects of this CFJ: Zefram gains 3 Points for timely Judgement ###################################################################### History: Called by Swann, June 18 1995, 11:33 MET Assigned to Zefram, June 18 1995, 12:48 UTC Judged FALSE by Zefram, June 22 1995, 08:53 +0100 (BST) ###################################################################### Statement: "The Clerk of the Courts violated Rule 1431/1 by distributing CFJ 772, CFJ 722, and the Appeal of CFJ 771. (This statement makes no allegation concerning the validity of these documents.)" ###################################################################### Arguments: On Thu, 15 Jun 95 12:17:36 Kelly posted a COE to the Public Forum: "I claim that the Clerk of the Courts erred, in claiming that the document issued as CFJ 771 is actually a legal CFJ." As far as I can determine, the current CotC has yet to respond to affirm or deny any of the COEs pending against the Clerk's Office. However, rule 1431/1 mandates: "The Respondant shall immediately investigate the claim of error, and, as soon as possible after the posting of the claim, either admit the claim and issue an official correction to the document, or deny the claim." And rule 1023/2 defines "as soon as possible" as: "within a week, and no later than any other action e is subsequently required to perform." The Clerk's distribution of statements to be Judged is an action e is required to perform (Rule 991/0): "The Clerk of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players." The CotC distributed the first CFJ 772 on Fri, 16 Jun 95 11:07:41 METDST, *after* Kelly's COE, but *before* responding to it. Therefore the CotC is in violation of Rule 1431/1. This is not trivial. If the Clerk, for instance, admits Kelly's Claim then every subsequent CFJ needs to be renumbered. Considering the volume of recent CFJs, a delay in addressing any of the COEs-- two of which allege that distributed CFJs are not legitimate-- will cause needless legal confusion. Note: This CFJ, if found TRUE, will not deprive any other CFJ of its legal force. To quote 1023/2: "This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have." By extension, the Clerk's violation of the "as soon as possible" clause of 1431/1 does not deprive the distributed CFJs and Appeals of the effects they would have had the Clerk observed the Rule. Further note: The violation of "as soon as possible" incurs a penalty of 10 points (Rule 1023/2) and of 1 Blot (Rule 1439/0) if this is found TRUE, Tabulator take note. ###################################################################### Decision: FALSE ###################################################################### Reasoning and Comments: For the second time this week, a CFJ has failed due to a typo in the statement. I will first discuss what would have happened to this judgment if the statement had instead been "The Clerk of the Courts violated Rule 1431/1 by distributing CFJ 772, CFJ 772, and the Appeal of CFJ 771. (This statement makes no allegation concerning the validity of these documents.)", assuming that the two "CFJ 772"s refer to the two CFJs given the number 772, the second of which should have been CFJ 773. In that case, Swann's argument (above) would be entirely correct. Kelly did post a legal Claim of Error to the Public Forum, requiring Andre (the Clerk of the Courts) to respond "as soon as possible". Andre subsequently distributed two CFJ 772s, and the appeal of CFJ 771, as the rules require. He therefore neglected to respond to the COE as soon as possible, in violation of 1431/1. Thus such a CFJ would be judged TRUE. The actual statement in CFJ 775 contained a reference to CFJ 722. The salient points concerning CFJ 722 are: (a) its posting was not in violation of rule 1431/1; and (b) it was posted on 15th November 1994, when Vanyel was the CotC. Therefore in order for the (correct) argument given in CFJ 775 to be relevant to the statement, it is necessary for it to be decided that: (a) the statement does not state that *each* of the required posts violated rule 1431/1, but merely that *the three combined* violated rule 1431/1; and (b) the words "the Clerk of the Courts" in the statement refer to *whoever held the office at the appropriate time*, rather than to *the current Clerk of the Courts*, namely Andre. To explain the above: as the posting of CFJ 722 did not violate rule 1431/1, then an interpretation of the statement that it states that *each* of the posts violated rule 1431/1 would make the statement FALSE. However, if the statement meant that "distributing CFJ 772, CFJ 722, and the Appeal of CFJ 771" should be taken as a single action (gramatically), then it is clear that this action did violate rule 1431/1, making that part of the statement TRUE. If the words "the Clerk of the Courts" are taken to refer to Andre specifically, then the statement is FALSE because Andre did not distribute CFJ 722. That is, unless he made some unrecorded and otherwise legally insignificant distribution of CFJ 722, that I cannot confirm. If "the Clerk of the Courts" is taken to mean the official position, rather than Andre, then it is TRUE that the Clerk of the Courts distributed CFJ 722, as well as the other CFJs mentioned. Note that the creation date of rule 1431/1 is not at all relevant to the question of whether CFJ 722 violated it. It is simply the case that to have done so would not be illegal, and hence that allegation alone would not be sufficient basis for a legal CFJ under rule 662/1. However, the other parts of the statement, regardless of interpretation, do clearly allege that certain Moves were illegal. On the two interpretation matters, I rule as follows: the matter of whether the statement treats "distributing CFJ 772, CFJ 722, and the Appeal of CFJ 771" as a single action I judge to be FALSE, after enquiring of the Caller which meaning he had intended. Whether "the Clerk of the Courts" refers to the position rather than the incumbent at the time of the CFJ, I judge TRUE, because rule 889/1 (Clerk of the Courts) clearly states "there shall exist an Office "Clerk of the Courts"...". Hence I must judge FALSE, on the grounds that distribution of CFJ 722 did not violate rule 1431/1. ###################################################################### References & Evidence: ----------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1023/2 (Mutable, MI=1) Definition of "As Soon As Possible" Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", e is required to perform that action within a week, and no later than any other action e is subsequently required to perform. Failure to observe these time requirements shall result at a minimum in the incursion of a 10 point penalty; other Rules may impose further penalties. However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time. This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them. This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold. (*Was: 805/907*) History: Created by Proposal 805 [date unknown] Amended by Proposal 907 [date unknown] Amended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995 ----------------------------------------------------------- Rule 991/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Invoking Judgement If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may invoke Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. Disagreement, for the purposes of this Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player. When Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Clerk of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players. No Player shall submit more than five CFJ's per week. (*Was: 407*) ----------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1431/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Claims of Error If a Player, hereafter called the Claimant, believes any official report or document to contain an error, e shall post to the Public Forum a statement that e believes the report to be in error, specifying the nature of the error, and requesting the Player responsible for the document, hereafter called the Respondant, to correct the error. The Respondant shall immediately investigate the claim of error, and, as soon as possible after the posting of the claim, either admit the claim and issue an official correction to the document, or deny the claim. Such admission or denial shall be posted to the Public Forum. If and only if the Respondant does not admit the claim, the Claimant may, within one week of the posted denial (or the expiration of any prescribed time limit for the Respondant's response), make a Call for Judgement alleging the document to be in error. If the Respondant does not admit the claim and a subsequent Call for Judgement finds that the claim is true, the Respondant shall lose 5 points. The Claimant is responsible for reporting this score change when it occurs. There is no penalty under this Rule if the Respondant admits the claim and corrects the error without a Call for Judgement having been made. A claim is illegal and may not be made if: a) another claim has previously been made alleging the same error, unless this prior claim was not admitted and the time limit to make a CFJ has expired; b) the document containing the error was published more than 21 days prior to the claim; or c) the Player making the claim is the same as the Player responsible for the document alleged to be in error. d) the report in error has been superceded by another report. For the purpose of this Rule, an "offical report or document" is any report or document which an Officer (or the Speaker) is required to maintain by the Rules in the course of eir duties as that Officer (or as Speaker), and an "error" is the omission or inclusion of any information which causes the official report or document to allege that the Game State is in any way different than it actually is. No Call for Judgement may be made alleging that a document contains errors except as prescribed in this Rule. This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which might allow a Call for Judgement prohibited by this Rule to be made, or which might prohibit a Call for Judgement permitted by the Rule from being made. History: Created by Proposal 1431, Feb. 7 1995 Amended(1) by Proposal 1491, Mar. 15 1995 ----------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1439/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Blots Due to a CFJ If a Call For Judgment (CFJ) clearly alleging that a Player has violated a specific Rule is found to be TRUE, the Player receives Blots equal to the Mutability Index of the violated Rule rounded down to the nearest whole integer, or four Blots if its Mutability Index exceeds four. This Rule defers to the wording of the violated Rule when it defines a Blot penalty in the specific case of a CFJ, or specifically forbids Blot penalties in the case of a CFJ. The Player who initially called for the CFJ has the Legal Responsibility to report Blots due to the CFJ to the Tabulator. History: Created by Proposal 1460, Mar. 1 1995 ----------------------------------------------------------- From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Assignment CFJ 772 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Fri, 16 Jun 95 11:07:41 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com ASSIGNMENT CFJ 772 (The injunction issued by Judge Ian in CFJ 771 is Illegal) ====================================================================== Judge: Vanyel [ CFJ text deleted for brevity ] ----------------------------------------------------------- From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Assignment CFJ 772 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Fri, 16 Jun 95 11:02:33 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com ASSIGNMENT CFJ 772 (Player Swann committed an illegal act...) ====================================================================== Judge: Dave Bowen [ CFJ text deleted for brevity ] ----------------------------------------------------------- From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Assignment Appeal CFJ 771 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Fri, 16 Jun 95 10:45:50 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com ASSIGNMENT UPON APPEAL OF CFJ 771 (Swann was not Tabulator when Kelly spent 5 points...) ====================================================================== Judgement: TRUE Judge: Ian [ Appeal text deleted for brevity ] ----------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Jun 95 12:17:36 From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us To: nomic-business@teleport.com Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com I claim that the Clerk of the Courts erred, in claiming that the document issued as CFJ 771 is actually a legal CFJ. ###################################################################### Additional References & Evidence: ----------------------------------------------------------- Rule 662/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Allowed CFJ's A "Move" refers to any specific action taken by a Player or group of Players in the context of the game. Any invocation of Judgement must satisfy one or more of the following conditions: - clearly allege that a specific Move is illegal; - clearly allege that a specific Rule is illegal or lacking in legal force, in whole or in part; - clearly allege that a specific Rule ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege, either implicitly or explicitly, that the Rules generally ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege that the current published game state is incorrect, and in what respects. A CFJ which does not satisfy at least one of the above conditions shall be deemed invalid and shall not be accepted for Judgement by the Clerk of the Courts. However, this Rule shall defer to rules which explictly permit CFJs that do not necessarily meet the above conditions. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1486, Mar. 15 1995 ----------------------------------------------------------- Rule 889/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Clerk of the Courts There shall exist an Office "Clerk of the Courts", who shall have general responsibility over administering Calls for Judgement, as outlined in the Rules. The Clerk's salary shall be five points. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1441, Feb. 21 1995 ----------------------------------------------------------- +-----------------| CFJ #722 |------------------+ | Caller: Troublemaker at Large Date: 15.11.94 | | Barred: | | Ineligible: KoJen | +-----------------------------------------------+ | Judge: Nicol Date Judged: MISTAKE | | Reassigned 15.11.94@ 22:05 CST | | Judge: Down with 815! Date Judged: 16.11.94 | | Judgment: FALSE | +-----------------------------------------------+ [ Text of Judgment deleted for brevity ] ----------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 9 Nov 94 09:58:44 -0500 From: cogen@ll.mit.edu (David Cogen) To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: Registrar's Reports I sent this yesterday but it didn't appear. ==== AGORA NOMIC REGISTRAR'S REPORTS========================================= DATE OF LAST REPORT : 11/01/94 DATE OF THIS REPORT : 11/08/94 [ News section, Player Lists and Milestones deleted for brevity ] ===== 3.0 BLUE PAGES ========================================================= {Listing of Officers, the Speaker; etc. Please see White Pages for addresses. Please see Group Report for Group Officers, which should be considered part of the Blue Pages for the purpose of satisfication of the Blue Pages Rule.} SPEAKER : the Pink Bimbo OFFICERS: Ambassador : Down with 815! Archivist : Vanyel Assistant : Coren Banker : the Pink Bimbo Clerk Of The Courts : Vanyel Distributor : Coren Herald : Lee Justiciar : Troublemaker at Large Registrar : KoJen Rulekeepor : Down with 815! Scorekeepor : Troublemaker at Large Sweepstakes Officer : Coren [ Special Listings, Group Report, Hall of Fame and Yellow Pages deleted for brevity ] ###################################################################### Andre From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Mon Jun 26 04:51:44 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id EAA19852 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 04:40:37 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id CAA01778 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 02:39:49 -0700 Received: from wing4.wing.rug.nl (wing4.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.4]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id CAA01773 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 02:39:45 -0700 Message-Id: <199506260939.CAA01773@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing4.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA18830; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 11:39:55 +0200 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Judgement CFJ 776 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Mon, 26 Jun 95 11:39:55 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO JUDGEMENT CFJ 776 (KoJen failed in eir legal duty as Promotor...) ====================================================================== Judge: Vanyel Judgement: FALSE Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Dave B., elJefe, Ian, JonRock, Kelly, Michael, SugarWater, Swann, Troublemaker At Large, Vanyel, Xanadu, Steve Caller: Zefram Barred: KoJen Not Eligible: Zefram (caller) KoJen (barred) Blob (1005) Coren, Pascal (On Hold & 1005) Point Changes: Vanyel gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement. ====================================================================== History: Called by Zefram Jun 20 1995, 15:42 +0100 Assigned to Vanyel Jun 21 1995, 08:22 UTC Assignment upheld Jun 21 1995, 09:37 UTC Judged FALSE by Vanyel, Jun 23 1995, 09:53 -0500 (CDT) ======================================================================= Statement: "KoJen failed in eir legal duty as Promotor, by failing to distribute legally submitted Proposals from JonRock, Steve, Swann and Andre. Eir Promotor's Report of 20th June 1995 was therefore in error, in that it did not list valid Proposals that e had received." ====================================================================== Arguments: On 20th June 1995, KoJen posted an official Promotor's Report to the Public Forum. In it e claimed to have received nine Proposals, but claimed that none were valid Proposals due to the fact that none of them contained both a Rule Change and a Directive. Rules 594/1 and 993/1 do not require proposals to contain either Rule Changes or Directives. KoJen's interpretation is entirely wrong. At least some of the nine proposals e received are valid, and under rule 1036/2 e is therefore legally required to officially distribute them. This argument hinges upon the unclear wording of rules 594/1 and 993/1. I claim that the normal English interpretation of the words "a Proposal may contain one or more ..." in that context would be "a Proposal may, optionally, contain one or more ..." rather than "a Proposal must contain one or more ...". I arrive at this interpretation, in part, because the words are part of rules that *describes* certain aspects of Proposals, rather than being a definitive *definition* of a Proposal. ======================================================================== Requested Injunction: That KoJen's Promotor's Report of 20th June be retracted, and that KoJen submit a corrected Promotor's Report, and that rules 594/1 and 993/1 be annotated in accordance with rule 789/1. ======================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Reasoning: I began to gather evidence on this CFJ, when suddenly I realized that it didn't matter whether KoJen was holding back Proposals (which is my personal belief), as none of the "Proposals" seem to have been sent in before 13 June. Therefore, his Promotor's Report was not, I regret to say, in error. I can't even call the ASAP Rule into evidence, as the Promotor's Report of 20 Jun was not anything required of em, but rather more along the lines of "discussion". Vanyel ======================================================================== References: ---------------------------------------- Rule 594/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Proposals and Rule Changes A Proposal may contain one or more Rule Changes. If a Proposal containing Rule Changes is adopted, the Rule Changes contained in the Proposal shall take effect in the order they appear in the Proposal. The Adoption Index of a Proposal shall be the least Index which is not less than the minimum Adoption Index which would allow all the Rule Changes within the Proposal to take effect. This paragraph yields to any Rule which may require a higher Adoption Index for a given Proposal. In no case may a Proposal have an Adoption Index of less than 1. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1323, Nov. 21 1994 ---------------------------------------- Rule 993/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Directives A Proposal may contain one or more Directives. A Directive, if adopted, causes some change in the Game State other than changing a Rule. No Directive may change any Rule. Only those Directives which are defined by the Rules may be placed in a Proposal. If a Proposal containing Directives is adopted, the Directives shall take effect in the order that they appear in the Proposal, and according to the Rule or Rule which define the type of each Directive in question. The Adoption Index of a Proposal containing a Directive must be at least as great as that required by the Rule or Rules which define the type of Directive contained in the Proposal. Any Proposal for which this is not true is not properly made. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1330, Nov. 22 1994 ---------------------------------------- Rule 1036/2 (Mutable, MI=1) Making and Distributing Proposals Let there be an Officer called the Promotor. The Promotor shall receive a weekly salary of 3 Points. A Proposal by a Player shall be made by submitting it to the Promotor. As soon as possible after receiving the Proposal, the Promotor shall assign the Proposal a Number. Within seven (7) days of the receipt of the Proposal, and not later than any subsequently received Proposal, the Promotor shall distribute the numbered Proposal to all Players. At the same time e shall distribute any text not part of the proposal which is required to be submitted with it, but eir failure to do so shall not deprive the act of distributing the Proposal of the effects which it would otherwise have. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1530, Mar. 24 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1546, Apr. 14 1995 ---------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 20 Jun 95 07:49:04 -0400 From: cogen@ll.mit.edu (David Cogen) To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: Promotor's Report Several Players have been after me to get the Promotor's Report out. I apologize for the delay. I have been studying the Rules pertaining to the duties of the Promotor, and soliciting the valued opinions of our Wisest Players. Submissions have been received from JonRock (4), Steve (3), Swann (1), and Andre (1). None of these are Proposals. By R594, a Proposal may contain one or more Rule Changes. By R993, a Proposal may contain one or more Directives. Together, they require a Proposal to contain at least one Rule Change *and* at least one Directive. None of the submissions met this requirement. Clearly, Rules 594 and 993 need to be amended. Watch for a proto, immediately following this message. (When I began to study the Rules relating to the Promotor, I neither expected nor desired this outcome. But I am convinced that no other interpretation is reasonable. How could we have overlooked this before?) -- KoJen ---------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 20 Jun 95 10:01:08 -0400 From: cogen@ll.mit.edu (David Cogen) To: nomic-business@teleport.com Subject: Re: BUS: COE: Promotor's Report Zefram sez: > I hereby make a Claim of Error concerning the Promotor's Report by the > Promotor, dated 20th June 1995. > > Specifically, I claim that the Promotor has in fact received more than > the zero valid proposals listed in eir Report, and e is therefore > required by rule 1036/2 to distribute them. I hereby deny this Claim of Error. The Promotor's Report was correct because no valid proposals have been received. -- KoJen ---------------------------------------- Andre From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Mon Jun 26 06:06:49 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id GAA20282 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 06:01:05 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id EAA07169 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 04:00:24 -0700 Received: from wing4.wing.rug.nl (wing4.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.4]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id EAA07160 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 04:00:20 -0700 Message-Id: <199506261100.EAA07160@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing4.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA20429; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 13:00:30 +0200 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Judgement CFJ 777 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Mon, 26 Jun 95 13:00:30 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ASSIGNMENT CFJ 777 ("The Clerk of the Courts violated Rule 1431/1...") ====================================================================== Judgement: Judge: Steve Eligible: Chuck, Dave B., elJefe, Ian, JonRock, KoJen, Michael, Steve, SugarWater, TaL, Vanyel, Xanadu, Zefram Caller: Swann Barred: Andre, Kelly Not Eligible: Swann (caller) Andre, Kelly (barred) Blob (1005) Coren, Pascal (1005 & On Hold) Effects: Steve receives 3 Points for Speedy Judgement Andre looses 10 Points for violating 1023 Andre must submit a Formal Apology as described in the injunction ====================================================================== History: Called by Swann, Jun 21 1995, 02:22 -0400 Assigned to Steve, Jun 21 1995, 09:18 UTC Judged TRUE by Steve, Jun 26 1995, 13:06 +1000 (EST) ====================================================================== Statement: "The Clerk of the Courts violated Rule 1431/1 by distributing CFJ 772, CFJ 772 (subsequently renumbered 773), and the Appeal of CFJ 771. (This statement makes no allegation concerning the validity of these documents.)" #################################################################### Arguments: On Thu, 15 Jun 95 12:17:36 Kelly posted a COE to the Public Forum: "I claim that the Clerk of the Courts erred, in claiming that the document issued as CFJ 771 is actually a legal CFJ." As far as I can determine, the current CotC has yet to respond to affirm or deny any of the COEs pending against the Clerk's Office. However, rule 1431/1 mandates: "The Respondant shall immediately investigate the claim of error, and, as soon as possible after the posting of the claim, either admit the claim and issue an official correction to the document, or deny the claim." And rule 1023/2 defines "as soon as possible" as: "within a week, and no later than any other action e is subsequently required to perform." The Clerk's distribution of statements to be Judged is an action e is required to perform (Rule 991/0): "The Clerk of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players." The CotC distributed the first CFJ 772 on Fri, 16 Jun 95 11:07:41 METDST, *after* Kelly's COE, but *before* responding to it. Therefore the CotC is in violation of Rule 1431/1. This is not trivial. If the Clerk, for instance, admits Kelly's Claim then every subsequent CFJ needs to be renumbered. Considering the volume of recent CFJs, a delay in addressing any of the COEs-- two of which allege that distributed CFJs are not legitimate-- will cause needless legal confusion. Note: This CFJ, if found TRUE, will not deprive any other CFJ of its legal force. To quote 1023/2: "This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have." By extension, the Clerk's violation of the "as soon as possible" clause of 1431/1 does not deprive the distributed CFJs and Appeals of the effects they would have had the Clerk observed the Rule. Further note: The violation of "as soon as possible" incurs a penalty of 10 points (Rule 1023/2) and of 1 Blot (Rule 1439/0) if this is found TRUE, Tabulator take note. ###################################################################### Judgement: TRUE Arguments: Swann's arguments are clear and his allegations are borne out by the evidence attached to his CFJ, to wit: that CotC Andre distributed 2 CFJs and a notice of Appeal subsequent to Kelly's having made a COE, but prior to his having responded to the COE. This contravenes the partial ordering placed on the actions of the CotC by Rule 1023. Injunctions: I therefore issue the following two Injunctions: 1. Andre is penalized 10 points for his violation of Rule 1023. The second Injunction is required by Rule 908: 2. Andre must submit a Formal Apology. The list of Prescribed Words is as follows: Never in the field of human conflict have so many ###################################################################### References & Evidence: ------------------------------------------------------ Rule 1023/2 (Mutable, MI=1) Definition of "As Soon As Possible" Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", e is required to perform that action within a week, and no later than any other action e is subsequently required to perform. Failure to observe these time requirements shall result at a minimum in the incursion of a 10 point penalty; other Rules may impose further penalties. However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time. This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them. This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold. (*Was: 805/907*) History: Created by Proposal 805 [date unknown] Amended by Proposal 907 [date unknown] Amended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995 ------------------------------------------------------ Rule 991/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Invoking Judgement If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may invoke Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. Disagrement, for the purposes of this Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player. When Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Clerk of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players. No Player shall submit more than five CFJ's per week. (*Was: 407*) ---------------------------------------- Rule 1431/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Claims of Error If a Player, hereafter called the Claimant, believes any official report or document to contain an error, e shall post to the Public Forum a statement that e believes the report to be in error, specifying the nature of the error, and requesting the Player responsible for the document, hereafter called the Respondant, to correct the error. The Respondant shall immediately investigate the claim of error, and, as soon as possible after the posting of the claim, either admit the claim and issue an official correction to the document, or deny the claim. Such admission or denial shall be posted to the Public Forum. If and only if the Respondant does not admit the claim, the Claimant may, within one week of the posted denial (or the expiration of any prescribed time limit for the Respondant's response), make a Call for Judgement alleging the document to be in error. If the Respondant does not admit the claim and a subsequent Call for Judgement finds that the claim is true, the Respondant shall lose 5 points. The Claimant is responsible for reporting this score change when it occurs. There is no penalty under this Rule if the Respondant admits the claim and corrects the error without a Call for Judgement having been made. A claim is illegal and may not be made if: a) another claim has previously been made alleging the same error, unless this prior claim was not admitted and the time limit to make a CFJ has expired; b) the document containing the error was published more than 21 days prior to the claim; or c) the Player making the claim is the same as the Player responsible for the document alleged to be in error. d) the report in error has been superceded by another report. For the purpose of this Rule, an "offical report or document" is any report or document which an Officer (or the Speaker) is required to maintain by the Rules in the course of eir duties as that Officer (or as Speaker), and an "error" is the omission or inclusion of any information which causes the official report or document to allege that the Game State is in any way different than it actually is. No Call for Judgement may be made alleging that a document contains errors except as prescribed in this Rule. This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which might allow a Call for Judgement prohibited by this Rule to be made, or which might prohibit a Call for Judgement permitted by the Rule from being made. History: Created by Proposal 1431, Feb. 7 1995 Amended(1) by Proposal 1491, Mar. 15 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 1439/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Blots Due to a CFJ If a Call For Judgment (CFJ) clearly alleging that a Player has violated a specific Rule is found to be TRUE, the Player receives Blots equal to the Mutability Index of the violated Rule rounded down to the nearest whole integer, or four Blots if its Mutability Index exceeds four. This Rule defers to the wording of the violated Rule when it defines a Blot penalty in the specific case of a CFJ, or specifically forbids Blot penalties in the case of a CFJ. The Player who initially called for the CFJ has the Legal Responsibility to report Blots due to the CFJ to the Tabulator. History: Created by Proposal 1460, Mar. 1 1995 ---------------------------------------- From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Assignment CFJ 772 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Fri, 16 Jun 95 11:07:41 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com ASSIGNMENT CFJ 772 (The injunction issued by Judge Ian in CFJ 771 is Illegal) ====================================================================== Judge: Vanyel [ CFJ text deleted for brevity ] ------------------------------------------- From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Assignment CFJ 772 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Fri, 16 Jun 95 11:02:33 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com ASSIGNMENT CFJ 772 (Player Swann committed an illegal act...) ====================================================================== Judge: Dave Bowen [ CFJ text deleted for brevity ] ---------------------------------------------- From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Assignment Appeal CFJ 771 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Fri, 16 Jun 95 10:45:50 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com ASSIGNMENT UPON APPEAL OF CFJ 771 (Swann was not Tabulator when Kelly spent 5 points...) ====================================================================== Judgement: TRUE Judge: Ian [ Appeal text deleted for brevity ] ----------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Jun 95 12:17:36 From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us To: nomic-business@teleport.com Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com I claim that the Clerk of the Courts erred, in claiming that the document issued as CFJ 771 is actually a legal CFJ. ---------------------------------------------------------- -- Steven Swiniarski (aka S Andrew Swann) gb485@cleveland.freenet.edu Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship. --Harry S Truman From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Wed Jun 28 03:36:53 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id DAA00482 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 03:34:10 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id BAA07568 for nomic-official-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 01:33:29 -0700 Received: from wing1.wing.rug.nl (wing1.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.1]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA07562 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 01:33:25 -0700 Message-Id: <199506280833.BAA07562@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing1.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA21774; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 10:34:34 +0200 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Judgement CFJ 778 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Wed, 28 Jun 95 10:34:33 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO JUDGEMENT CFJ 778 ("The combination of Rules 594/1 and 993/1...") ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Judge: Xanadu Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Dave B., elJefe, Ian, JonRock, Kelly, Michael, Steve, SugarWater, TaL, Vanyel, Xanadu, Zefram Caller: Swann Barred: KoJen Not Eligible: Swann (caller) KoJen (barred) Blob (1005) Coren, Pascal (1005 & On Hold) Effects: Xanadu receives 3 Points for timely Judgement ====================================================================== Statement: "The combination of Rules 594/1 and 993/1 should be interpreted to mean that a Proposal can *only* be a Proposal and be legally distributed by the Promotor, if *and only if* it contains both a Rule Change *and* a Directive." ====================================================================== History: Called by Swann, Jun 21 1995, 09:13 MET Assigned to Xanadu, Jun 21 1995, 09:54 UTC Judged FALSE by Xanadu, Jun 28 1995, 00:10 +1000 (EST) ######################################################################## Arguments: Kojen does this much better than I, I will repeat Kojen's fantastic discovery about these two rules: -------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #97 (107 is last): Date: Tue Jun 20 07:49:04 1995 From: cogen@ll.mit.edu (David Cogen) Subject: OFF: Promotor's Report To: nomic-official@teleport.com Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Several Players have been after me to get the Promotor's Report out. I apologize for the delay. I have been studying the Rules pertaining to the duties of the Promotor, and soliciting the valued opinions of our Wisest Players. Submissions have een received from JonRock (4), Steve (3), Swann (1), and Andre (1). None of these are Proposals. By R594, a Proposal may contain one or more Rule Changes. By R993, a Proposal may contain one or more Directives. Together, they require a Proposal to contain at least one Rule Change *and* at least one Directive. None of the submissions met this requirement. Clearly, Rules 594 and 993 need to be amended. Watch for a proto, immediately following this message. (When I began to study the Rules relating to the Promotor, I neither expected nor desired this outcome. But I am convinced that no other interpretation is reasonable. How could we have overlooked this before?) -- KoJen ------------------------------------------------------------- Obviously the Promotor is privy to great wisdom not granted to us mere mortals. To divine such exclusivity inherent within two separate rules with conditional clauses requires a great mind. I am unable to approach such reasoning myself. . . I must assume that the lack of Kojen's CFJ on this critical and fundamental matter within the Ruleset must simply be an oversight and I see it as my duty as an Agora citizen to petition the Judiciary to accept such fundamental wisdom. It is, indeed fundamental. Look at how far-ranging Kojen's perceptive argument reaches: Rule 1451/0: "A player may disown their own proposal" Rule 991/0: "a Player may invoke Judgement" Rule 692/3: "A Player may voluntarily transfer Points" Rule 1440: "A Player may Erase eir Blots" Indeed, there is an intricate web of things that "may" be done, and it is Kojen's legacy to us to take the scales off of our eyes, to make us aware that the word "may" does not imply an option at all, it does in fact bear the weight of a prescriptive *demand* upon us. It is our duty to follow such logic when presented in such a lucid, effective, and altogether helpful manner. {Opinions within this CFJ may not necessarily represent those of the Caller.} ====================================================================== Judgement & Reasoning of Judge: I judge the statement to be FALSE. My reasoning is as follows: In the opinion of this Judge, the relevant sentences of both rule 594/1 and rule 993/1 (those beginning "A Proposal may contain ...") state nothing more than "the inclusion of Rule Changes and/or Directives in a submission that might otherwise be a Proposal does not preclude said submission from being a Proposal." I thus interpret the rules as meaning that the inclusion of one or more Rule Changes and Directives in a Proposal is optional; both, one or neither may occur. I believe that this interpretation of the use of "may" in the ruleset is in keeping with Game Custom. #################################################### Refrences: ---------------------------------------- Rule 594/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Proposals and Rule Changes A Proposal may contain one or more Rule Changes. If a Proposal containing Rule Changes is adopted, the Rule Changes contained in the Proposal shall take effect in the order they appear in the Proposal. The Adoption Index of a Proposal shall be the least Index which is not less than the minimum Adoption Index which would allow all the Rule Changes within the Proposal to take effect. This paragraph yields to any Rule which may require a higher Adoption Index for a given Proposal. In no case may a Proposal have an Adoption Index of less than 1. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1323, Nov. 21 1994 ---------------------------------------- Rule 993/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Directives A Proposal may contain one or more Directives. A Directive, if adopted, causes some change in the Game State other than changing a Rule. No Directive may change any Rule. Only those Directives which are defined by the Rules may be placed in a Proposal. If a Proposal containing Directives is adopted, the Directives shall take effect in the order that they appear in the Proposal, and according to the Rule or Rule which define the type of each Directive in question. The Adoption Index of a Proposal containing a Directive must be at least as great as that required by the Rule or Rules which define the type of Directive contained in the Proposal. Any Proposal for which this is not true is not properly made. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1330, Nov. 22 1994 ---------------------------------------- Rule 1451/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Disowning Proposals A player may disown their own proposal if it has not yet been distributed or if no more than four days have passed since its distribution, by sending a statement disowning it to the Public Forum. The player so disowning a proposal loses a flat fee of five points, reported by the Assessor, but any other score changes, blots, or other effects resulting from the player's submission of that proposal, including but not limited to formatting penalties, rule repeal rewards, new player bonuses, and awards or penalties for votes cast on that proposal are cancelled and shall not be taken into account. The disowning Player does not receive any Extra Votes for a Proposal he disowned, even if it passes. Neither the Assessor nor any Player who has been Assessor since the beginning of the voting period on that proposal may disown a proposal, unless that proposal has not yet been distributed. This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which would otherwise seek to reward or penalize any player based on the disowned proposal. History: Created by Proposal 1549, Apr. 14 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 991/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Invoking Judgement If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may invoke Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. Disagreement, for the purposes of this Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player. When Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Clerk of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players. No Player shall submit more than five CFJ's per week. (*Was: 407*) ---------------------------------------- Rule 692/3 (Mutable, MI=1) Trading Points A Player may voluntarily transfer Points in eir possession to any other Player for any purpose, within the following limits: (a) the transfer must be posted to the Public Forum (b) a Player may only transfer a positive number of Points (c) a Player may not transfer more Points than e currently has (d) a Player may not transfer Points if the recipient has more than than 90% of the Points required to Win, or would pass this limit as a result of the transfer. If any agreement among Players includes any transfer of Points between two Players then each such transfer shall be in accordance with the above. But this Rule shall not be construed as having any bearing on the legality or legal enforceability of any terms of said agreement which do not involve such a transfer. All Nomic Entities shall abide by the above limits whenever Points are traded. If a Nomic Entity must trade Points by the current Rules but would end up breaking the above limits, then the Nomic Entity trades the maximum amount possible without breaking any of the above limits. This Rule shall have precedence over all other Rules pertaining to the Trading of Points. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1360, Dec. 13 1994 Amended(2) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 1560, Apr. 17 1995 ---------------------------------------------- Rule 1440/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Erasing Blots A Player may Erase eir Blots by spending five Points for each Blot Erased. A Player may Erase any number of Blots as long as e does not reduce eir Point total below zero. A Player with less than five Points may not Erase Blots. The Player Erasing Blots must report to the Tabulator and the Scorekeepor the number of Blots e is Erasing, and the Points required to do so. If this requires more Points than the Player has at the time of the request, then no Blots are erased, and no Points are lost. If there are sufficient Points, the Scorekeepor reduces the Player's Points by the required amount and the Tabulator reduces the Player's Blots as requested. Other rules may define additional methods of Erasing Blots. History: Created by Proposal 1461, Mar. 1 1995 ---------------------------------------- -- Steven Swiniarski (aka S Andrew Swann) gb485@cleveland.freenet.edu Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship. --Harry S Truman From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Fri Jun 23 07:44:46 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id HAA12876 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 07:36:46 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id FAA12065 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 05:34:55 -0700 Received: from wing4.wing.rug.nl (wing4.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.4]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id FAA12051 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 05:34:49 -0700 Message-Id: <199506231234.FAA12051@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing4.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA04775; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 14:34:59 +0200 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Judgement CFJ 779 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 14:34:59 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO I forgot the 'Effects of this CFJ'-part. I publicly apologize for that, and hope I can still repair my mistake. Andre. ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 779 ("Rule 1466 should be interpreted such that...") ====================================================================== Judgement: TRUE Judge: Michael Caller: Chuck Eligible: Andre, Dave Bowen, elJefe, Ian, JonRock, Kelly KoJen, Michael, Steve, SugarWater, Swann, Tal, Vanyel, Xanadu, Zefram Barred: none Not Eligible: Chuck (caller) Blob (1005) Coren, Pascal (On Hold & 1005) Effects of this CFJ: Michael receives 5 Points for Speedy Judgement. The Scorekeeport is required to annotate 1466 as described in the Injunction ====================================================================== History: Called by Chuck, June 21 1995, 19:16 +0200 Assigned to Michael, June 22 1995, 09:58 UTC Judged TRUE by Michael, June 23 1995, 10:53 BST ====================================================================== Statement: Rule 1466 should be interpreted such that a Proposal containing one or more Currency Directives, and no other Directives or Rule Changes which would require the Proposal to have a Adoption Index greater than 1, has a Adoption Index of 1. Relevant Rules: 1466, 594, 993 ====================================================================== Requested injunction: I also request that the Judge make an Injunction on the interpetation of Rule 1466, as described in Rule 789. (Even though this request is not necessary for the Judge to make the Injunction.) ====================================================================== Arguments: (This is essentially a resubmission of CFJ 769, with an unfortunate miswording corrected.) My statement is a bit long, but this, I feel, is necessary. Essentially, it says that the presence of a Currency Directive in and of itself in a Proposal does not require that Proposal to have an AI greater than 1. Rule 1466 states that "These Directives [Currency Directives] have an Adoption Index of 2." An Adoption Index of a Directive is essentially meaningless, as no other Rule makes any reference to the AI of a Directive. Rule 594 sets the Adoption Index of Proposals, but is mainly concerned with Rule Changes. It merely defers to other Rules which set a higher AI for certain Proposals. 1466 is *not* such a Rule, as it says nothing about the AI of any Proposals, only the AI of certain Directives. Rule 993, defining Directives, states, "The Adoption Index of a Proposal containing a Directive must be at least as great as that required by the Rule or Rules which define the type of Directive contained in the Proposal." Rule 1466 makes *no* requirements about the AI of any Proposal. Furthermore, both Rule 993 and Game Custom make clear that even if a Proposal contains only a single Directive, the Proposal is not the same as the Directive. Thus, there is no Rule which would require a Proposal of the sort defined in my statement (i.e. with one or more Currency Directives, and possibly other Directives and Rule Changes that do not require the Proposal to have an AI greater than 1) to have an AI greater than 1. Thus, by Rule 594, such a Proposal has an AI of 1. ====================================================================== Judgement: TRUE Argument: As the caller points out in their attached argument, rule 1466 fails to use the appropriate language to specify an AI for a proposal containing a Currency Directive. Instead, the rule mistakenly attempts to define an AI for the directive itself, a meaningless concept. Examples of the correct way to word specifications of AIs for Proposals containing Directives can be found in the 1006/2 (Directives to install an Officer), 1054/1 (Changing the category of a rule), 1052/1 (Creating new rule categories) and 649/1 (Patent titles). ====================================================================== Injunction: As allowed for by 789, I require the Scorekeepor to annotate rule 1466 with the Statement above, and the list of relevant rules (provided with the CFJ). ====================================================================== References: 1. Rule 1466 2. Rule 594 3. Rule 993 ======1. Rule 1466 Rule 1466/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Currency Directives There is a type of Directive, called a Currency Directive. These Directives have an Adoption Index of 2. If adopted, they have the effect of specifying the Currency holdings contained in an Entity or Entities' Treasury or Treasuries. They may have no other effects. History: Created by Proposal 1596, Jun. 2 1995 ======2. Rule 594 Rule 594/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Proposals and Rule Changes A Proposal may contain one or more Rule Changes. If a Proposal containing Rule Changes is adopted, the Rule Changes contained in the Proposal shall take effect in the order they appear in the Proposal. The Adoption Index of a Proposal shall be the least Index which is not less than the minimum Adoption Index which would allow all the Rule Changes within the Proposal to take effect. This paragraph yields to any Rule which may require a higher Adoption Index for a given Proposal. In no case may a Proposal have an Adoption Index of less than 1. History: .. Amended(1) by Proposal 1323, Nov. 21 1994 ======3. Rule 993 Rule 993/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Directives A Proposal may contain one or more Directives. A Directive, if adopted, causes some change in the Game State other than changing a Rule. No Directive may change any Rule. Only those Directives which are defined by the Rules may be placed in a Proposal. If a Proposal containing Directives is adopted, the Directives shall take effect in the order that they appear in the Proposal, and according to the Rule or Rule which define the type of each Directive in question. The Adoption Index of a Proposal containing a Directive must be at least as great as that required by the Rule or Rules which define the type of Directive contained in the Proposal. Any Proposal for which this is not true is not properly made. History: .. Amended(1) by Proposal 1330, Nov. 22 1994 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andre From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Fri Jun 23 07:44:46 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id HAA12880 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 07:37:40 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id FAA12242 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 05:35:52 -0700 Received: from wing4.wing.rug.nl (wing4.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.4]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id FAA12231 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 05:35:42 -0700 Message-Id: <199506231235.FAA12231@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing4.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA04782; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 14:35:42 +0200 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Judgement CFJ 780 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 14:35:42 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO JUDGMENT CFJ 780 ("That KoJen violated Rule 1023 when he distributed...") ====================================================================== Judge: Zefram Judgement: UNDECIDABLE Caller: Steve Eligible: Chuck, Dave Bowen, elJefe, Ian, JonRock, Kelly, Michael, SugarWater, Troublemaker At Large, Vanyel, Xanadu, Zefram Barred: KoJen, Andre, Swann Not Eligible: Steve (caller) Andre, KoJen, Swann (barred) Blob (1005) Coren, Pascal (On Hold & 1005) Effects of this CFJ: Zefram receives 5 points for speedy judgements ====================================================================== History: Called by Steve, Jun 22 1995, 13:06 +1000 (EST) Assigned to Zefram, Jun 23 1995, 08:22 UTC Judged UNDECIDABLE by Zefram, Jun 23 1995, 12:11 +0100 (BST) ====================================================================== Statement: That KoJen violated Rule 1023 when he distributed a Proposal numbered 1607, and that he therefore incurs a 10 point penalty under that Rule. ====================================================================== Requested Injunction: That KoJen be penalized 10 points under Rule 1023, and that he submit a Formal Apology under Rule 908 for his violation of Rule 1023. ====================================================================== Reasons and Arguments: Rule 1036 requires the Promotor assign numbers to Proposals "as soon as possible" after receiving them. Rule 1023 defines "as soon as possible" to mean "within a week, and no later than any other action which e is subsequently required to perform". I allege that there were other actions which the Promotor was required to perform prior to (to be precise, no later than) his distribution of the Proposal which he numbered 1607, namely, the numbering of other Proposals which he had received prior to that one, and after he had received Proposal 1606. If the Judge believes that there were other such Proposals, then e should (in my view) Judge the Statement TRUE. ====================================================================== Decision: UNDECIDABLE ====================================================================== Reasoning of judgment: Steve's argument is largely logically correct, and refers to rules accurately. Specifically, if KoJen received any valid Proposals before he distributed Proposal 1607, then e was required by Rule 1036 (and 1023) to number them before distributing Proposal 1607. If he received them before receiving Proposal 1607, then he was required by Rule 1036 (and 1023) to number them before numbering Proposal 1607. This would seem to indicate that he violated Rule 1023 in the course of violating Rule 1036, which required him to number such Proposals before numbering Proposal 1607. That argument, however, arrives at the conclusion that he neglected to number these proposals by assuming that he numbered them in the manner required by Rule 109. It is not possible to rule out the possibility that he in fact numbered such proposals before numbering Proposal 1607, but numbered at least one of the involved proposals (definitely including the Proposal distributed as Proposal 1607) incorrectly, and distributed them out of order. Such action would violate Rules 109 and 1036, but not 1023 as Proposals are not required to be distributed As Soon As Possible. It is noted that had the Statement referred to Rule 1036 instead of Rule 1023, then it would have had the intended effect of requiring a determination of whether any Proposals of the type discussed above were actually submitted. ====================================================================== References and Evidence: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 109/2 (Semimutable, MI=3) Proposal Numbers The Promotor shall give each submitted Proposal a Number for reference. The Number of a Proposal shall be the least integer greater than all other Numbers previously assigned to a Proposal (including numbers assigned to Proposals later determined to have been incorrectly submitted), or 301, whichever is greater. History: Initial Immutable Rule 109, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to Rule 1057, MI=3 by Proposal 1057, Sep. 20 1994 Amended to Rule 1067 by Proposal 1067, Oct. 4 1994 Renumbered from 1067 to 109 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 1435, Feb. 14 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1530, Mar. 24 1995 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1023/2 (Mutable, MI=1) Definition of "As Soon As Possible" Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", e is required to perform that action within a week, and no later than any other action e is subsequently required to perform. Failure to observe these time requirements shall result at a minimum in the incursion of a 10 point penalty; other Rules may impose further penalties. However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time. This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them. This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold. (*Was: 805/907*) History: Created by Proposal 805 [date unknown] Amended by Proposal 907 [date unknown] Amended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1036/2 (Mutable, MI=1) Making and Distributing Proposals Let there be an Officer called the Promotor. The Promotor shall receive a weekly salary of 3 Points. A Proposal by a Player shall be made by submitting it to the Promotor. As soon as possible after receiving the Proposal, the Promotor shall assign the Proposal a Number. Within seven (7) days of the receipt of the Proposal, and not later than any subsequently received Proposal, the Promotor shall distribute the numbered Proposal to all Players. At the same time e shall distribute any text not part of the proposal which is required to be submitted with it, but eir failure to do so shall not deprive the act of distributing the Proposal of the effects which it would otherwise have. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1530, Mar. 24 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1546, Apr. 14 1995 ====================================================================== From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Fri Jul 7 07:49:33 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id HAA00234 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 1995 07:45:55 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id EAA02691 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 1995 04:00:17 -0700 Received: from wing4.wing.rug.nl (wing4.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.4]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA02618 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 1995 03:59:49 -0700 Message-Id: <199507071059.DAA02618@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing4.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA25312; Fri, 7 Jul 1995 12:59:43 +0200 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: CFJ 781: Correction To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Fri, 7 Jul 95 12:59:43 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 781 (CORRECTED) ("The correct interpretation of Rule 1466...") ====================================================================== Judge: Michael (defaulted) KoJen Judgement: FALSE Caller: Troublemaker At Large Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Dave Bowen, elJefe, Ian, JonRock, Kelly, KoJen, Steve, SugarWater, Swann, Vanyel, Xanadu, Zefram Not Eligible: Troublemaker At Large (caller) Blob (1005) Coren, Pascal (1005 & On Hold) Michael (defaulted) Effect: Michael gains 3 Blots and is not eligible anymore as a Judge. BEWARE! The 10 Point loss given earlier does NOT apply. KoJen gains 3 Points for timely Judgement. Rule 1446 should be annotated as described in the Judge's Injunction ====================================================================== History: Called by TAL, June 22 1995, 13:16 SET Assigned to Michael, June 23 1995, 09:00 UTC Defaulted by Michael, June 30 1995, 09:00 UTC Assigned to KoJen, June 30 1995, 15:50 UTC Judged FALSE by KoJen, July 6 1995, 15:56 -0400 ====================================================================== Statement: The correct interpretation of Rule 1466 implies that it does not limit the effect of a Currency Directive on adoption to only one moment in time. Requested injunction: I request that the Judge make an Injunction on the interpetation of Rule 1466, as described in Rule 789. (Even though this request is not necessary for the Judge to make the Injunction.) ====================================================================== Decision & Injunction: My judgement on CFJ781 is FALSE. Injunction: Rule 1446 shall be annotated as follows: This Rule should be interpeted such that a Currency Directive causes a one-time change to a Treasury, in the same manner as in involuntary transfer. ====================================================================== Arguments: According to 1446 a Currency Directive has the effect of specifying the Currency holdings contained in some Treasury. However, nowhere in the Rules it is said for how long the Currency Directive remains effective. 1446 states only "if adopted", which excludes the CD from having any effect before the adoption of the Proposal containing the CD, but learns us nothing about the time of application, after adoption. The generic Rule on Directives 993, doesn't help either. In its first paragraph it uses exactly the same wording: "A Directive, if adopted, causes some change in the Game State other than changing a Rule." The second paragraph claims: "If a Proposal containing Directives is adopted, the Directives shall take effect in the order that they appear in the Proposal" which changes the starting moment a little bit, but nothing more. In fact, none of the other Directives has an effectiveness that is limited to one specific moment in time. So why should the Currency Directive? ====================================================================== Reasoning of Judge: At first, I almost thought that TRUE *might* be a plausible ruling because of this phrase in Rule 1466: If adopted, they have the effect of specifying the Currency holdings contained in an Entity or Entities' Treasury or Treasuries. The word is "specify" rather than "set". "Specify" has connotations which *can* imply a lasting influence, contrasted with "set" which implies an action at a specific instant. Note that most other Directives do not create this ambiguity, because the action caused by most other Directives is described using a verb which, like "set", clearly implies an action applied at a specific instant. So Rule 1466, alone among all Directives, is ambiguous as to whether it implies a continuous effect (in this case, on a Currency, nullifying all other attempts to change the Currency). How do we handle this? Several ways. 1) "Common sense". It is clearly a ludicrous interpretation that a Currency Directive can serve as a permanent impediment to any change to that Currency, even as amounts are added and removed to that treasury by voluntary and involuntary transfers. Of course, common sense is used as a last resort in Agora, but I believe it was used in other recent judgements. (Who said, "if there are two interpretations, one of which leads to contradictions and ther other of which does not, use the one which does not"?) I believe that is applicable here. 2) A perhaps more convincing way to solve the ambiguity, and justify the ruling of FALSE, is in Rule 993 itself. The second paragraph contains the sentence: If a Proposal containing Directives is adopted, the Directives shall take effect in the order that they appear in the Proposal, and according to the Rule or Rule which define the type of each Directive in question. The defining Rule for Directives clearly explains how to order multiple Directives which occur in a single Proposal. But if a Directive could cause a continuous action into the future, then such ordering would be unnecessary, and would not even make sense. Thus I am forced to conclude that Rule 993 clearly defines Directives to cause an action to occur at a specific instant in time only. ====================================================================== References: Rule 1466/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Currency Directives There is a type of Directive, called a Currency Directive. These Directives have an Adoption Index of 2. If adopted, they have the effect of specifying the Currency holdings contained in an Entity or Entities' Treasury or Treasuries. They may have no other effects. Rule 993/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Directives A Proposal may contain one or more Directives. A Directive, if adopted, causes some change in the Game State other than changing a Rule. No Directive may change any Rule. Only those Directives which are defined by the Rules may be placed in a Proposal. If a Proposal containing Directives is adopted, the Directives shall take effect in the order that they appear in the Proposal, and according to the Rule or Rule which define the type of each Directive in question. The Adoption Index of a Proposal containing a Directive must be at least as great as that required by the Rule or Rules which define the type of Directive contained in the Proposal. Any Proposal for which this is not true is not properly made. ====================================================================== Andre From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Mon Jun 26 04:36:48 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id EAA19840 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 04:35:31 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id CAA01458 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 02:34:48 -0700 Received: from wing4.wing.rug.nl (wing4.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.4]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id CAA01451 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 02:34:43 -0700 Message-Id: <199506260934.CAA01451@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing4.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA18698; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 11:34:47 +0200 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Judgement CFJ 782 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Mon, 26 Jun 95 11:34:46 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ASSIGNMENT OF CFJ 782 ("That the most recent Promotor's report...") ====================================================================== Judge: Dave Bowen Judgement: FALSE Caller: Steve Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Dave Bowen, elJefe, Ian, JonRock, Kelly KoJen, Michael, SugarWater, Swann, TAL, Vanyel, Xanadu Zefram Barred: none Not Eligible: Steve (caller) Blob (1005) Coren, Pascal (On Hold & 1005) Changes: Dave Bowen receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement. ====================================================================== History: Called by Steve, Jun 23 1995, 01:24 +1000 (EST) Assigned to Dave Bowen, Jun 23 1995, 09:13 UTC Judged FALSE by Dave Bowen, Jun 23 1995, 09:19 -0500 ====================================================================== Statement: That the most recent Promotor's Report, in which a Proposal numbered 1607 has been distributed, is in error, in that this Proposal has been distributed later than other Proposals, not yet distributed by the Promotor, which were received by him earlier than this Proposal, and in that this Proposal has been distributed with an incorrect Number. Requested Injunction: I request that the Judge issue an Injunction requiring Promotor KoJen to distribute a corrected Promotor's Report forthwith, containing the texts and correct numbers for all the Proposals which has received since the numbering of Proposal 1606 and prior to the distribution of the erroneously numbered Proposal 1607. ====================================================================== Reasons and Arguments: Both the distribution and the numbering are in contravention of Rule 1036. First the distribution: Rule 1036 requires that the Promotor distribute numbered Proposals "not later than any subsequently received Proposal". Hence the Promotor cannot legally distribute the above Proposal unless and until he has distributed the other Proposals which he has received prior to this one. On the numbering: Rule 1036 requires the Promotor to assign Numbers to Proposals "as soon as possible" after receiving them. From Rule 1023, "as soon as possible" means "within a week, and no later than any other action which e is subsequently required to perform". Hence the above Proposal can only be numbered 1607 if the Promotor has not received any other Proposals since Proposal 1606 was given its number. I allege that this is not the case: that the Promotor has received other Proposals prior to this one, and that one of these Proposals (in fact, whichever was the earliest received of them) is the correct deserver of the number 1607. Naturally, the truth of the CFJ rests entirely on the matter of whether Promotor KoJen is correct in maintaining that he has in fact received no texts prior to the one he distributed as Proposal 1607, which are to be regarded as legally submitted Proposals. This matter is currently under consideration by another Judge. ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Reasoning: This judge agrees with Plantiff's claim that the truth of this CFJ rests entirely on the question of whether the Promoter has in fact received no validly submitted Proposals prior to the one he distributed as number 1607. This question is currently the issue in another CFJ. But by submitting this CFJ before the other CFJ has been decided, the Plantiff has forced this Judge to make his own determination of the facts in this issue. The relevant rules are 594/1 and 993/1. In both of them we find the dread word "may". This word has two generally accepted meanings in the English language the first roughly synonymous with "is allowed to" and the second roughly synonymous with "is required to". Rejecting those cases where the permissive interpretation is assigned to one rule and the restrictive interpretation is assigned to the other, we are left with two cases to consider. Under the permissive interpretation, anything meeting the other requirements for proposalhood would be a valid Proposal. It would make these rules meaningless. Thus we reject the permissive interpretation. This leaves us with the restrictive interpretaion for both rules and we are forced to agree with the Promoter that under the current rules a Proposal must contain both a Rule Change and a Directive. We will accept the Promoter's statement that the texts he had received did not meet this requirement as the Plantiff has not challenged it in his statement of the issues. ====================================================================== Evidence: I. Rule 1036 II. Rule 1023 (excerpt) I. Rule 1036 Rule 1036/2 (Mutable, MI=1) Making and Distributing Proposals Let there be an Officer called the Promotor. The Promotor shall receive a weekly salary of 3 Points. A Proposal by a Player shall be made by submitting it to the Promotor. As soon as possible after receiving the Proposal, the Promotor shall assign the Proposal a Number. Within seven (7) days of the receipt of the Proposal, and not later than any subsequently received Proposal, the Promotor shall distribute the numbered Proposal to all Players. At the same time e shall distribute any text not part of the proposal which is required to be submitted with it, but eir failure to do so shall not deprive the act of distributing the Proposal of the effects which it would otherwise have. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1530, Mar. 24 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1546, Apr. 14 1995 ---------------------------------------- II. Rule 1023 (excerpt) Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", e is required to perform that action within a week, and no later than any other action e is subsequently required to perform. ---------------------------------------- Andre From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Tue Jun 27 03:21:49 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id DAA26303 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 03:14:01 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id BAA15785 for nomic-official-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 01:12:52 -0700 Received: from wing1.wing.rug.nl (wing1.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.1]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA15704 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 01:12:35 -0700 Message-Id: <199506270812.BAA15704@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing1.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA00374; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 10:13:26 +0200 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Judgement CFJ 783 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Tue, 27 Jun 95 10:13:25 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO JUDGEMENT CFJ 783 ("Agora's Rules (in particular 993/1) are currently such...") ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Judge: Vanyel Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Dave Bowen, elJefe, Ian, JonRock, Kelly KoJen, Steve, SugarWater, Swann, TAL, Vanyel, Xanadu Zefram Caller: Michael Barred: none Not Eligible: Michael (caller) Blob (1005) Coren, Pascal (1005 & On Hold) Changes: Vanyel gains 3 Points for Timely Judgement ====================================================================== History: Called by Michael, June 23 1995, 10:29 BST Assigned to Vanyel, June 23 1995, 12:22 UTC Judged FALSE by Vanyel, June 27 1995, 01:29 -0500 (CDT) ====================================================================== Statement & Requested Injunction: Agora's rules (in particular 993/1) are currently such that Proposals containing Directives can only be adopted if there are no votes AGAINST the Proposal. As this is a rule interpretation judgement, I am required by 789/1 to include a list of relevant rules. In this case I believe the list to include 993/1 and 594/1. If the Judge should find the statement TRUE, they may choose to an injunction as per 789. ====================================================================== Argument: 594 states: The Adoption Index of a Proposal shall be the least Index which is not less than the minimum Adoption Index which would allow all the Rule Changes within the Proposal to take effect. This paragraph yields to any Rule which may require a higher Adoption Index for a given Proposal. 993 states: The Adoption Index of a Proposal containing a Directive must be at least as great as that required by the Rule or Rules which define the type of Directive contained in the Proposal. Any Proposal for which this is not true is not properly made. Only if there were no AGAINST votes can a Proposal containing Directives pass. 1274/0 defines an ordering on Indices such that a Proposal with a Voting Index (see 955/2) of Unanimity automatically has a greater index than any possible Adoption Index. Otherwise it is impossible to determine the Voting Index required to adopt the Proposal. ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Reasoning: At first I was confused by the argument, but it seems to boil down to the fact that the Rules seem to provide a lot of lower bounds for AI, but nothing else. Yet, by calling in the quoted paragraph of 594, we see that the AI must be the "minimum...which would allow all the Rule Changes within the Proposal to take effect." In the case of a Proposal with Directives and no Rule Changes, this would be 1, as that is the minimum AI (1 being the lowest possible AI, also from 594) that would allow all the Rule Changes therein to take effect (there being none). Of course, if the Directives require a higher AI, that's fine too--but they do not absurdly require Unanimity. ====================================================================== Andre From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Mon Jul 17 03:53:39 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id DAA06040 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 03:42:58 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id BAA21935 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 01:39:46 -0700 Received: from wing1.wing.rug.nl (wing1.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.1]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA21927 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 01:39:42 -0700 Message-Id: <199507170839.BAA21927@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing1.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA28604; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 10:40:28 +0200 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: CFJ 785: Judgement To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Mon, 17 Jul 95 10:40:26 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT CFJ 785 ("The first injunction issued by Judge Steve...") ====================================================================== Judge: JonRock SugarWater Judgement: Eligible: Chuck, Dave Bowen, elJefe, Ian, JonRock, KoJen, Michael, SugarWater, Swann, TAL, Vanyel, Xanadu Zefram Caller: Kelly Barred: Steve, Andre Not Eligible: Blob (either 1005 or not a Player) Coren (either On Hold & 1005 or Not a Player) Pascal (On Hold & 1005) Kelly (caller) Steve, Andre (barred) JonRock (defaulted) Effects: JonRock gains 3 Blots for defaulting Judgement and is not anymore eligible to be a Judge. SugarWater gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement Steve must submit a Formal Apology containing the words selected by the Judge. ====================================================================== History: Called by Kelly, June 29 1995, 01:50 EST5 Assigned to JonRock, July 5 1995, 08:21 UTC Defaulted by JonRock, July 12 1995, 08:21 UTC Re-assigned to SugarWater, July 13 1995, 08:44 UTC Judged TRUE by SugarWater, July 14 1995, 21:12 -0700 (PDT) ====================================================================== Statement: The first Injunction issued by Judge Steve in CFJ 777 is illegal. ====================================================================== Argument: Rule 663/1 only permits a Judge to make those Injunctions which are specifically authorized in the Rules. Steve's first Injunction, "Andre is penalized 10 points for his violation of Rule 1023" is not of a type permitted by the Rules. The Rules only authorize three sorts of Injunction, and the Injunction under question is not one of these three. Rule 665/0 permits an Injunction to retract an illegal move and the consequences thereof; however, this Injunction assessess a penalty mandated by the Rules, which is not a retraction of a move or an adjustment resulting from the retraction of said illegal move; if anything, the penalty is a consequence of the illegal move, and retracting the Move would also retract the penalty, not enforce it. Rule 789/1 permits an Injunction to annotate a Rule; clearly this Injunction does not seek this. Finally, Rule 908/3 permits a Judge to issue an Injunction which specifies a list of prescribed Rules which a Ninny must use in a Formal Apology mandated by that same Rule. Judge Steve's first Injunction is not of this sort either. Since the Injunction in question is not of a form permitted by the Rules, it is illegal and has no legal force. ====================================================================== Decision & Injunction: Judgement: TRUE Injunction: As per rule 908/3, Player Steve must submit a Formal Apology, containing the following Prescribed Words: chiaroscuro belletrist sabre-rattling curmudgeon angst ====================================================================== Reasoning: It is clear that the injunction in question is neither a Rule annotation nor a call for Formal Apology, and, therefore, does not fall under the auspices of rule 789/1 or 908/3. This requires that, for the Injunction to be legal, it must be of the type described in rule 665/0 -- namely, "specifying that the move is to be retracted, and any resulting adjustments to the game state". The injunction in question clearly does not mandate the retraction of a move. It is, therefore, illegal, and the Caller's statement is TRUE. ====================================================================== Evidence: I. Rule 663/1 II. Rule 665/0 III. Rule 789/1 IV. Rule 903/3 V. CFJ 777, incorporated by reference -------I. Rule 663/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Injunctions--General There shall be an entity known as an Injunction, which may accompany certain Judgements of TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDABLE as provided in the rules. An Injunction is a statement or series of statements specifying an action or actions which must take place. If a Judgement is is accompanied by an Injunction, that Injunction must be published with the Judgement. All players must abide by the Injunction beginning no later than 72 hours after its publication unless one of the following conditions then apply: - The Judgement which the Injunction accompanies is undergoing appeal, currently UNKNOWN as a consequence of the appeal process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but a proposal has been published which would overturn that decision if passed, and said proposal has not failed. - The validity of the Injunction itself is questioned by a pending CFJ. - A Judgement upholding the validity of the Injunction is undergoing appeal, currently UNKNOWN as a consequence of the appeal process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but a proposal has been published which would overturn that decision if passed, and said proposal has not failed. A Judgement may not be accompanied by an Injunction unless it is specifically permitted elsewhere in the rules. An Injunction must be completely consistent with all rules in effect at the time of issuance, and must be completely relevant to the matter addressed in the corresponding judgement. If any Player believes that an Injunction or any part of it does not meet the criteria for a valid Injunction, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If the resulting Judgement supports the contention that the criteria are not met, the Injunction shall be considered illegal and shall have no legal force. This rule takes precedence over all rules governing Injunctions. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995 -------II. Rule 665/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Injuction--Retracting an Illegal Move If a CFJ alleges that a specific Move is illegal, and the Judgement supports the allegation, the Judge may include with the Judgement an Injunction specifying that the move is to be retracted, and any resulting adjustments to the published game state. The adjustments to the game state must have been unambiguously specified within the CFJ, and these adjustments must only undo actions which were a direct or indirect result of that Move. -------III. Rule 789/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Injunctions on Interpretations of Rules When a player makes a CFJ alleging that a Rule should be interpreted in a certain way, e shall also submit a list of Rules relevant to that CFJ, which must include the Rule in question. If the statement is Judged TRUE, the Judge may include with the Judgement an Injuction requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule in question with the Statement in the CFJ and the list of relevant Rules. The annotation shall remain only until one of the Rules in the list of relevant Rules is changed in any way; or until a CFJ determines that the injunction no longer applies, as described below. While it remains, it shall guide the application of that Rule. If a Player believes that the circumstances which led to the Judgement no longer prevail and the annotation is therefore no longer applicable, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is Judged TRUE, the annotation shall be stricken from the rule set. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1396, Jan. 29 1995 -------IV. Rule 908/3 (Mutable, MI=1) Formal Apologies If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Ninny must submit to the Public Forum a Formal Apology within 72 hours of the publication of Judgement, unless that Judgement is successfully appealed within 72 hours. By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words, con-taining all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed) ex-plaining the Ninny's error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. A Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge's choice, and ordering that the Ninny's Formal Apology must include the Prescribed Words. If the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots. The Player who called the initial CFJ has the duty to report to the Tabulator any Blots gained through this rule. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1362, Dec. 13 1994 Amended(2) by Proposal 1382, Jan. 17 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 1500, Mar. 24 1995 ======================================================================- Andre From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Wed Jul 5 05:52:08 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id FAA07111 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 1995 05:41:46 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id DAA03652 for nomic-official-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 1995 03:41:07 -0700 Received: from wing4.wing.rug.nl (wing4.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.4]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA03632 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 1995 03:40:58 -0700 Message-Id: <199507051040.DAA03632@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing4.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA00675; Wed, 5 Jul 1995 12:41:04 +0200 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: CFJ 786: Judgement To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Wed, 5 Jul 95 12:41:03 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ========================================================================== JUDGEMENT CFJ 786 ("The rules ought to be interpreted in such a way...") ========================================================================== Judge: Troublemaker At Large Judgement: TRUE Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Dave Bowen, Ian, JonRock, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, SugarWater, Swann, Troublemaker At Large, Vanyel Zefram Caller: elJefe Barred: none Not Eligible: elJefe (Caller) Coren (1005) Pascal, Steve, Xanadu (On Hold) Effects: TAL gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement ========================================================================== History: Called by elJefe, July 3 1995, 21:21 +0200 Assigned to TAL, July 4 1995, 09:48 UTC Judged TRUE by TAL, July 5 1995, 10:15 +0200 ========================================================================== Statement: The rules ought to be interpreted in such a way that the submission distributed as Proposal 1614 is not a properly made Proposal, and should not be voted upon. ========================================================================== Argument: I personally would prefer if the Rules allowed 1614 to be voted upon and not take effect; however, the Rules are not currently written this way, and this is the only way to prevent the Proposal from being effective. I am also not specifically claiming the KoJen broke the Rules, or that a particular report is in error. This is just an interpretation CFJ. Rule 1003 forbids Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a player into voting against eir conscience. The commentary accompanying the Proposal makes this intent explicit. Such a proposal is considered not to be "proposed in the proper way". (Rule 1003) Rule 106 only requires a vote for "Proposals made in the proper way." Further, Rule 1003 claims precedence over other rules which would otherwise allow such a shameful proposal to be voted upon, such as Rule 683, 957, etc. The question arises as to the possible effects on Rule 1003 of its infection by the Nomic Virus. This caused the last two paragraphs to read ... This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which would otherwise allow such a shameful Proposal to be voted on. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. (omitting the meaningless "(*Was: 822*)" designation). It is never relevant in Agora Nomic to ask about the author's intent, and it is even less relevant here, if possible, since the "author" of the latest amendment is the Virus. Consistent with this stance, I would ask the Judge to ignore the fact that the proposal was partly Virus-generated, and interpret the words as they are written, as if a Player had written the proposal this way. This allows us to try to make sense of the Rule as an organic entity. There are two ways to interpret the last paragraph: (1.) it contradicts the previous paragraph, and cancels its effect; or (2.) it refers to rules not covered by the penultimate paragraph (mentioning "other Rules" as it does) and therefore leaves 1003's claimed precedence intact. It is an ancient rule of legal construction that if there are two possible ways to interpret a rule, the preferred interpretation is the one which is not internally contradictory. Under (1.), the Rule contradicts itself and would cause the second- last paragraph to be meaningless. This interpretation would give the rule the same effect no matter what precedence claim that paragraph made. Under (2.), the penultimate paragraph explicitly give the rule precedence as before. The last paragraph may now cause it to defer to some rules where it had precedence by virtue of its number, but not where the previous paragraph claims precedence. In this interpretation, each paragraph of the Rule has meaning. Interpretation (2.) should be preferred, Rule 1003 should be held to have precedence as it did before infection, and "Proposal 1614" should be considered not properly made, and should not be voted upon. ========================================================================== Decision & Reasoning Judge: Judgment: TRUE Arguments: There are four Rules that define when a Proposal is not "properly made" Let us see whether they apply to `the submission distributed as Proposal 1614' (P1614 for short). 1) Rule 993 states a condition relevant only to Directives. No problem for P1614. 2) Rule 597 obliges Proposals to be headed by a Title. P1614 has one. 3) Rule 1003 is the Rule upon which both ElJefe and Steve rely when they argue against or for the legality of P1614. Its first sentence states: "Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player into voting against eir conscience are disallowed." This seems very clear to me: P1614's obvious intent is to coerce Players and 1003 forbids such Proposals explicitly. Hence P1614 is *not* a Proposal. (Apparently it is a bit of text send by Steve via the Promotor to the Agora community to amuse everybody.) The fact that the second and third paragraph are contradictory, does not modify my argument, as there is no Rule that obliges the Promotor to do something with non-Proposals. Take for instance 1036: it states that a *Proposal* shall be numbered and distributed. But P1614 is not a Proposal. Or take 404: "As long as a Proposal satisfies all requirements in place at the time of its making for the proper making of Proposals, the act of making such a Proposal is legal regardless of its content." No doubt....but again, not applying to P1614. (Note: and what if P1614 was a Proposal? Well, I haven't looked at it in detail, but the logical contradiction in 1003 would make a case for a legitimate UNDECIDED, if not for 783.) 4) The fourth Rule dealing with "proper" is 783. The relevant part is: "Proposals which contain clauses awarding, trading, penalizing, or otherwise changing the account of any Nomic Entity's holding of Points or any other form of Currency based on the Vote they cast on that Proposal are invalid, shall not be deemed to have been properly submitted, and shall not be Voted upon." This is clear too. Even if P1614 was a Proposal, the nature of its threat "All and only those Players who did not [...] are hereby deregistered as of the Creation of this Rule." is in violation of Rule 783. After all, upon deregistration, the Point, Mark, EV and other Currency holdings of these Players are put to zero, which seems quite penalizing to this Judge. Therefore my Judgment is TRUE. ==== Greetings, TAL ========================================================================== Evidence Rule 1003/1 (Mutable, MI=1) No Coercive Proposals Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player into voting against eir conscience are disallowed. Such a proposal is considered not to be "proposed in the proper way". This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which would otherwise allow such a shameful Proposal to be voted on. (*Was: 822*) This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. History: ... Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jun. 4 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 106/0 (Semimutable, MI=3) Adopting Proposals All Proposals made in the proper way shall be voted upon. A Proposal shall be adopted if and only if it receives the required number of votes and if Quorum is achieved. History: Initial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994 Amended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994 Renumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994 Infected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May. 7 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 683/3 (Mutable, MI=1) Legal Votes Players may cast of a Vote of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN for any Proposal within its prescribed Voting Period. In order to be legally cast, the Vote must be received by the Counting Assessor or posted to the Public Forum during the prescribed Voting Period. The Assessor will reveal the Votes cast by each Player only after the prescribed Voting Period has ended. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1473, Mar. 8 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 957/0 (Mutable, MI=1) YES=FOR; NO=AGAINST; Anything else=ABSTAIN Votes of FOR or YES are to be considered Votes in favor of a Proposal. Votes of AGAINST or NO are to be considered Votes opposed to a Proposal. Other Votes are not to be considered as in favor or opposition. (*Was: 462*) ---------------------------------------- Proposal 1614 (Steve) AI=1 A Coercive Proposal (!) Create a Rule with the following text: All and only those Players who did not vote FOR the Proposal whose adoption resulted in the Creation of this Rule, and who did not vote FOR any Proposal to award the Patent Title of the Order of Machiavelli to Player JonRock, are hereby deregistered as of the Creation of this Rule. They may not reregister for a period of ten days. This Rule then automatically repeals itself. #### Comments: It is my view that the penalty threatened by the proposal is coercive within the meaning of Rule 1003. The proposal attempts to coerce Players to vote FOR JonRock's forthcoming attempt to achieve the Machiavelli Title. This proposal of JonRock's will be distributed in the next Promotor's Report. With it will also be my own attempt to have this Title awarded to myself. I choose to attempt to coerce support for JonRock rather than myself because I want it to be clear than I am not trying to exploit the Viral infection of Rule 1003 for personal gain. However, the infection of Rule 1003 presents us with a quite rare case of explicit self- contradiction in a Rule, and I could not pass up such an opportunity to explore the consequences of this. I want to stress that JonRock knows nothing more of this attempt than any of you. So, to the core question: can Promotor KoJen legally distribute this Proposal? Can he legally refrain from doing so? Rules 1036 and 109 require him to assign text submitted to him as a proposal a Number, and to distributer this text within 7 days. Prior to its infection, Rule 1003 took precedence over these Rules and would have prevented a Proposal like the above from being distributed. Post-infection, the situation is not so clear, since Rule 1003 now also explcitly defers to Rule 1036 and 109. It is my hope that Promotor KoJen will distribute this Proposal so that we may see what ensues. It seems certain, and indeed it is intended, that the legality of distributing this Proposal will end up being considered by the courts. I think that will be fun for everyone. [distributed Fri, 30 Jun 95 15:21:02 -0400, by KoJen] ====================================================================== References, added by Judge: Rule 404/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Legality of Proposals As long as a Proposal satisfies all requirements in place at the time of its making for the proper making of Proposals, the act of making such a Proposal is legal regardless of its content. It is legal to propose a Rule which conflicts with other Rules or with itself, which is paradoxical, or which cannot be applied. Rule 597/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Titles for Proposals Every Proposal shall be headed with a Title. This Title shall not actually be a part of the Proposal itself and therefore shall not become a part of any Rule Enacted or Amended by that Proposal. If a Proposal is not headed with a Title, then the proposal is not properly submitted, and shall not be Voted upon. Rule 783/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Illegality of Bonus Clauses Proposals which contain clauses awarding, trading, penalizing, or otherwise changing the account of any Nomic Entity's holding of Points or any other form of Currency based on the Vote they cast on that Proposal are invalid, shall not be deemed to have been properly submitted, and shall not be Voted upon. (*Was: 326*) Rule 789/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Injunctions on Interpretations of Rules When a player makes a CFJ alleging that a Rule should be interpreted in a certain way, e shall also submit a list of Rules relevant to that CFJ, which must include the Rule in question. If the statement is Judged TRUE, the Judge may include with the Judgement an Injuction requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule in question with the Statement in the CFJ and the list of relevant Rules. The annotation shall remain only until one of the Rules in the list of relevant Rules is changed in any way; or until a CFJ determines that the injunction no longer applies, as described below. While it remains, it shall guide the application of that Rule. If a Player believes that the circumstances which led to the Judgement no longer prevail and the annotation is therefore no longer applicable, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is Judged TRUE, the annotation shall be stricken from the rule set. Rule 993/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Directives A Proposal may contain one or more Directives. A Directive, if adopted, causes some change in the Game State other than changing a Rule. No Directive may change any Rule. Only those Directives which are defined by the Rules may be placed in a Proposal. If a Proposal containing Directives is adopted, the Directives shall take effect in the order that they appear in the Proposal, and according to the Rule or Rule which define the type of each Directive in question. The Adoption Index of a Proposal containing a Directive must be at least as great as that required by the Rule or Rules which define the type of Directive contained in the Proposal. Any Proposal for which this is not true is not properly made. Rule 1036/2 (Mutable, MI=1) Making and Distributing Proposals Let there be an Officer called the Promotor. The Promotor shall receive a weekly salary of 3 Points. A Proposal by a Player shall be made by submitting it to the Promotor. As soon as possible after receiving the Proposal, the Promotor shall assign the Proposal a Number. Within seven (7) days of the receipt of the Proposal, and not later than any subsequently received Proposal, the Promotor shall distribute the numbered Proposal to all Players. At the same time e shall distribute any text not part of the proposal which is required to be submitted with it, but eir failure to do so shall not deprive the act of distributing the Proposal of the effects which it would otherwise have. ========================================================================== Andre From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Fri Jul 14 08:23:35 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id IAA21584 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 1995 08:11:56 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id GAA23104 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jul 1995 06:07:31 -0700 Received: from wing1.wing.rug.nl (wing1.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.1]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id GAA23072 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 1995 06:07:24 -0700 Message-Id: <199507141307.GAA23072@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing1.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA08395; Fri, 14 Jul 1995 15:08:13 +0200 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: CFJ 788: Judgement To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Fri, 14 Jul 95 15:08:12 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== ASSIGNMENT CFJ 788 ("The Assessor's Report of July 1 is in error...") ====================================================================== Judge: Ian (declined) Swann Judgement: FALSE Eligible: Andre, Brian, Dave Bowen, Ian, KoJen, Michael, Steve, SugarWater, Swann, TAL, Vanyel, Zefram Caller: Chuck Barred: Kelly, elJefe, JonRock Not Eligible: Chuck (caller) Kelly, elJefe, JonRock (barred) Coren (1005) Pascal (On Hold & 1005) Xanadu (On Hold) Effects: Ian looses 2 Points, 1 of which goes to the CotC, for declining Judgement. Swann gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement ====================================================================== History: Called by Chuck, July 10 1995, 08:21 CST Assigned to Ian, July 11 1995, 10:10 UTC Declined by Ian, July 11 1995, 13:58 -0700 Assigned to Swann, July 12 1995, 07:24 UTC Judged FALSE by Swann, July 14 1995, 06:51 -0400 ====================================================================== Statement: The Assessor's Report of July 1 is in error, in that Chuck has 94 Extra Votes, and TAL has -80 Extra Votes; and the Scorekeepor's Report of July 5 is in error, in that a transfer of at least 189 points from TAL to Chuck was not recorded. ====================================================================== Arguments: These errors are due to two transfers required by the Currency Scam Contest, of 80 EVs and at least 189 points. (The point transfer stated in the Contest regulation calls for 199.5 points to be transferred. 90% of the points necessary for me to win at that time, however, was 189 points. A case can be made that 199.5 points were transferred anyway. Since I do not wish to address this issue here, I merely state "at least 189 points" were transferred. The question of whether these transfers took place hinges on whether or not they were "involuntary" transfers. Player's treasuries may "go negative" due to an involuntary transfer, but not due to a voluntary transfer. So if these transfers were involuntary, they took place; if they were not, they did not. Rule 1472 states, in part, Transfers which are not voluntary transfers ("involuntary" transfers) may only be made as specifically required by the Rules. These transfers were clearly not voluntary transfers, as they do not meet the requirements in the first paragraph of Rule 1472 (i.e. they attempted to transfer more points and EVs than TAL had). Thus, either they are involuntary transfers or they were not transfers at all. I would like to address three objections which have been raised to the proposition that the transfers were involuntary. 1. It has been alleged that the transfers were not required by the Rules. This is clearly not so; Rule 1446 requires Contestants to obey Contest Regulations; thus, a transfer required by Contest Regulations is also required by Rule 1446. Contest Regulations have no authority in and of themselves; they have only that authority granted them by the Rules. In fact, anything which is required of Players *must* be required by the Rules, as nothing else has, in and of itself, the legal authority to require obedience. 2. It has been alleged that any transfers taking place directly due to Player actions are voluntary transfers. There is nothing in Rule 1472 to suggest this. True, 1472 does define voluntary transfers as taking place upon the action of a Player, but there is *nothing* to suggest that all point changes directly due to Players' actions must be voluntary. 3. It has been alleged that the transfers are required by the Rules, but not *specifically* required by the Rules. The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd ed., lists "specifically" as an adverb form of "specific." "Specific" is defined as "explicitly set forth; definite." The second of these is easier to demonstrate: the transfers required are very definite, being 80 Extra Votes and 199.5 points from TAL to me. Are they explicitly set forth? Yes, Rule 1446 explicitly states that Contestants must follow contest Regulations. Thus, I conclude that the transfers in question are specifically required by the Rules and are thus involuntary transfers. ====================================================================== Decision & Reasoning Judge: Judgement: FALSE Aguments: I'll address the Caller's points in order: # 1. It has been alleged that the transfers were not required by # the Rules. This is clearly not so; Rule 1446 requires Contestants # to obey Contest Regulations; thus, a transfer required by # Contest Regulations is also required by Rule 1446. Contest # Regulations have no authority in and of themselves; they # have only that authority granted them by the Rules. In fact, # anything which is required of Players *must* be required by # the Rules, as nothing else has, in and of itself, the legal # authority to require obedience. It is true that any Contest Regulation has force only through the authority of 1446, and thus falls on the precedence scale along with 1446. (Note this fact.) # 2. It has been alleged that any transfers taking place directly # due to Player actions are voluntary transfers. There is nothing # in Rule 1472 to suggest this. True, 1472 does define voluntary # transfers as taking place upon the action of a Player, but there # is *nothing* to suggest that all point changes directly due to # Players' actions must be voluntary. This is true. There is nothing in 1472 to suggest that a Player cannot trigger an involuntary transfer by an act of free will. I willingly took on the office of Herald, does that make my salary a voluntary transfer? # 3. It has been alleged that the transfers are required by the Rules, # but not *specifically* required by the Rules. The American Heritage # Dictionary, 2nd ed., lists "specifically" as an adverb form of # "specific." "Specific" is defined as "explicitly set forth; definite." # The second of these is easier to demonstrate: the transfers required # are very definite, being 80 Extra Votes and 199.5 points from # TAL to me. Are they explicitly set forth? Yes, Rule 1446 # explicitly states that Contestants must follow contest Regulations. This, in fact, was my first argument against this scam. My reading at first led me to the conclusion that this language-- "specifically required by the Rules" -- meant that this only applied to clauses within *Rules* that award/penalize some explicit amount of currency. However, the Caller's argument sways me a considerable distance because the only rational way to adjudicate any Contest Regulation's relationship to the Ruleset as a whole, is through its enabling legislation, 1446. The Contest Regulations can be considered, in effect, an invisible part of Rule 1446, only applicable to the Contestmaster and Contestant. I am swayed the rest of the way by the following fact: Rule 1446 takes precedence over 1472! In a bizarre oversight, 1472 does not claim precedence over any other Rule, Ordinance, anything, that claims to proscribe a Currency transfer. In effect, it does not matter what the language of 1472 has to say about voluntary and involuntary transfers, negative and non-negative totals-- it defers to the Contest Rule! Those who are frightened by the prospect may cling to the following clause in 1446: "All Contestants, and the Contestmaster, are bound by the Regulations except where these conflict with the Rules." This doesn't solve the problem because the Regulation: "4. Within 72 hours after becoming a Contestant, TAL shall transfer 80 Extra Votes and 199.5 Points from TAL's Treasury to Chuck's Treasury. TAL shall be responsible for reporting these transfers to the appropriate Officers. After these transfers take place and the transfers are reported, this Contest shall be dissolved. A Contestant ceases to be a Contestant when this Contest is dissolved." Doesn't conflict with the Rules. Rule 1446 absolves Contestant and Contestmaster from following Regulations that Conflict with the Rules-- it does not absolve them from being forced to act in a way that conflict with the Rules. If there was a conflict, it was in TAL's attempt to comply, *not* in the Regulation. And, as stated beforehand, that conflict (if it existed at all) is resolved by 1472's deference to 1446. The only remaining consideration is who was legally responsible to report TAL's transfer. TAL was the Player who did the Reporting, but according to 1446: "[The Contestmaster] reports all currency transfers taking place under the Regulations, is the Executor of the Contest Fund, and maintains the Regulations." In applying my interpretation of the contest Regs as extension of 1446, we have a situation where the Rule explicitly contradicts itself, saying in one place that Chuck (who did no reporting) should report the transfer, and in another that TAL (who did report) should be the Player to Report the transfer. However, one clause is within the Rule itself and the other in its subordinate Regulations. Since there is a conflict, I must give the actual Rule greater weight than the Regulations it enables. Rule 1446 MUST take precedence over the Regulations it empowers, or else it could not empower them at all-- it would have no power to bind them or define their characteristics. It was Chuck's duty, as Contestmaster, to report the transfer, despite the language of Reg 5. The transfer has not yet been reported. Does that invalidate the transfer? As to *that* question, rule 1472 claims to cancel any unreported Currency transfer after the passage of a week. But, as I've pointed out, almost every Rule takes precedence over 1472, including 1446. 1472 doesn't have the power to invalidate TAL's transfer no matter how long it takes Chuck to report it. 1472 also claims that a transfer cannot occur before it is reported. This explicitly conflicts with the language of Reg 5, which specifies: "Within 72 hours after becoming a Contestant." Since 1446 takes precedence, the transfer had to have taken place at that time, no mater who did or did not report it. So even if Chuck did not report the transfer, because of the wording of Reg 5, the transfer occurred. Presumably this happened 72 hours after TAL became a Contestant. This would be sometime during the evening of Sun, July 2. However, the documents alleged to be in error were dated the day before this transfer occurred, so I must rule the specific Statement FALSE. ====================================================================== Evidence: 1. Rule 1446 2. Rule 1472 3. Currency Scam Contest Regulations 4. TAL's message of June 29 reporting the transfers 5. Assessor's Report of July 1 6. Scorekeepor's report of July 5 [Some of the header information from 4, 5, and 6 has been deleted in the interest of bandwidth. The entire headers can be supplied upon request. ======1. Rule 1466 Rule 1466/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Currency Directives There is a type of Directive, called a Currency Directive. These Directives have an Adoption Index of 2. If adopted, they have the effect of specifying the Currency holdings contained in an Entity or Entities' Treasury or Treasuries. They may have no other effects. Annotation according to Rule 789 and CFJ 779: Rule 1466 should be interpreted such that a Proposal containing one or more Currency Directives, and no other Directives or Rule Changes which would require the Proposal to have a Adoption Index greater than 1, has a Adoption Index of 1. Relevant Rules: 594, 993, 1466 History: Created by Proposal 1596, Jun. 2 1995 ======2. Rule 1472 Rule 1472/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Transfer of Currencies The owner of a given Treasury may, at any time, transfer any or all of the units of Currency within that Treasury to any other Treasury, so long as this transfer is permitted by the Rules. Such a transfer is known as a "voluntary" transfer. Voluntary transfers are restricted to positive quantities, and in no case may more of a given Currency be transferred from a Treasury than that Treasury possessed prior to the transfer. The Recordkeepor of a Currency must be notified as soon as possible by the owner of the Treasury from which a voluntary transfer is made. If a voluntary transfer is not reported to the Recordkeepor within seven days, it is cancelled and does not take place. Transfers which are not voluntary transfers ("involuntary" transfers) may only be made as specifically required by the Rules. Such transfers must be reported to the Recordkeepors of the Currencies involved as soon as possible thereafter, by a Player specified by the Rules. Involuntary transfers may be of any amount (limited only by MUQ rounding), and may involve amounts greater than the amount in the Treasury from which the transfer originates. If an involuntary transfer is not reported to the Recordkeepor within seven days, or there is no Rule which requires a Player to report the involuntary transfer, the transfer is cancelled and does not take place. All transfers take effect no sooner than the time the Recordkeepor of the Currency is informed of the transfer. History: Created by Proposal 1601, Jun. 19 1995 ======3. Currency Scam Contest Regulations 1. The Contestmaster is Chuck. The Contestmaster may not be changed. 2. Only TAL is permitted to become a Contestant. The Entry Fee is 1 Reform Group Coin. 3. Any Currencies in the Currency Scam Contest Fund at any time shall be transferred to the Contestmaster. 4. Within 72 hours after becoming a Contestant, TAL shall transfer 80 Extra Votes and 199.5 Points from TAL's Treasury to Chuck's Treasury. TAL shall be responsible for reporting these transfers to the appropriate Officers. After these transfers take place and the transfers are reported, this Contest shall be dissolved. A Contestant ceases to be a Contestant when this Contest is dissolved. 5. These regulations shall not be changed. ======4. TAL's message of June 29 reporting the transfers Date: Thu, 29 Jun 95 19:15:45 SET From: KUNNE@CERNVM.cern.ch Subject: BUS: More transfers To: nomic-business@teleport.com The Currency Scam Contest Regulations require me to transfer 80 Extra Votes and 199.5 Points from my Treasury to Chuck's Treasury. (I should have read the small-print first, I guess :-) However, as I emptied carefully my Treasury just a minute ago, one might think that there is a problem. Luckily the Rule 1472 ("Transfer of Currencies") provides a solution. Note that both these transfers are "involuntary" transfers in the sense of Rule 1472. Both are specifically required by the Contest Rule, which obliges me to obey the Regulations. Note also, that "involuntary" transfers may result in a Player ending up with a negative number of a certain Currency. Therefore: Mir. Assessor, please take note that I transfer 80 Extra Votes from my Treasury to Chuck's Treasury, an "involuntary" transfer required by the Currency Scam Contest Regulations. Mir. Scorekeepor, please take note that I transfer 199.5 Points from my Treasury to Chuck's Treasury, an "involuntary" transfer required by the Currency Scam Contest Regulations. As these transfers have now been reported, the CS Contest shall be dissolved and I cease to be a Contestant. Who can guess, what the next step will be in this Scam? TAL ======5. Assessor's report of July 1 Date: Sat, 1 Jul 1995 14:30:02 -0400 From: jlc@camex.Camex.COM (Jeff Caruso) To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: Result of Proposal 1607 Assessor's Report, 1 July 1995 08:43:27, for Proposal 1607 ============================================================================= Num. Proposer Title RESULT 1607 TAL Ambassador and Mark Cleanup FAILS 4-6 (1) Note: the quorum for 1607 was 9. ============================================================================= Result of Proposal 1607 1 6 0 1 Chuck A Dave B A elJefe F Ian - Kelly A KoJen A Steve F TAL 2F Vanyel A Zefram A F-A -2 FOR 4 AGAINST 6 ABSTAIN 1 A.I. 1 PASSES? N *** Scorekeepor, please note: Score changes resulting from the above: Chuck +1 (voting) Dave B +1 (voting) elJefe +1 (voting) Ian +1 (voting) Kelly +1 (voting) KoJen +1 (voting) Steve +1 (voting) TAL +1 (voting) + -2 (F-A) [Total: -1] Vanyel +1 (voting) Zefram +1 (voting) ============================================================================= Extra Votes: Official Report of the Recordkeepor ============================================================================= Name 6/1 6/6 6/12 6/19 7/1 ========== === === === === === Andre 5 5 5 4 4 Blob 3 3 3 3 -- (deregistered) Dave Bowen 3 3 3 3 3 Chuck 10 10 15 14 14 Coren 12 12 12 12 12 elJefe 0 0 0 0 5 Ian 0 0 0 0 0 JonRock 3 3 3 3 3 Kelly 11 11 11 18 18 KoJen 6 6 6 6 6 Michael 40 40 40 40 36 Pascal 3 3 3 3 3 Steve 11 11 11 11 11 Swann 14 14 14 14 14 TAL 6 6 1 1 0 Vanyel 4 3 3 2 2 Xanadu 2 2 2 2 2 TOTAL 133 132 132 136 133 Number of Players currently Registered: 18 Threshhold for EV creation : 90 ============================================================================= Votes cast: 6/23: TAL 1 (Proposal 1607) ============================================================================= Transfers since 6/19: 6/29: TAL to Chuck: 1 (impossible, already cast) 6/29: TAL to Chuck: 80 (impossible by Rule 1472) 6/30: Michael to elJefe: 4 Special note: TAL's 80 EV transfer to Chuck is invalidated as in excess of his EV holdings, under Rule 1472. TAL's claim that the transfer is "involuntary" is rejected, since Rule 1466's requirement that TAL obey the Contest Regs is phrased generally and not "specifically" with respect to this kind of transfer. An "involuntary" transfer must be an automatic one which takes place without any action on the player's part, and there is no Rule enabling Contest Regulations to cause such a transfer (except as detailed in Rule 1466, when a contest dissolves). ============================================================================= ============================================================================= Text of Adopted Proposals: None. ============================================================================= - elJefe, Assessor of Agora Nomic ****************************************************************** Dr. Jeffrey L. Caruso Information International ======6. Scorekeepor's report of July 5 Scores as of 22 Jun 1995 at 15:14 GMT: Andre +30.0 (+ 191.7 = 221.7) 0 blots Vanyel +19.0 (+ 202.7 = 221.7) 0 blots Kelly +18.0 (+ 235.3 = 253.3) 0 blots Dave Bowen +16.0 (+ 205.7 = 221.7) 0 blots Troublemaker at Large +16.0 (+ 237.3 = 253.3) 0 blots Steve +11.0 (+ 210.7 = 221.7) 1 blots elJefe +11.0 (+ 210.7 = 221.7) 0 blots Michael +9.0 (+ 212.7 = 221.7) 0 blots Swann +9.0 (+ 181.0 = 190.0) 0 blots Zefram +6.9 (+ 183.1 = 190.0) 0 blots JonRock +6.0 (+ 184.0 = 190.0) 0 blots KoJen +6.0 (+ 279.0 = 285.0) 0 blots Ian +5.0 (+ 185.0 = 190.0) 0 blots Blob +3.0 (+ 187.0 = 190.0) 0 blots SugarWater +0.9 (+ 189.1 = 190.0) 0 blots Chuck +0.0 (+ 221.7 = 221.7) 0 blots Coren +0.0 (+ 190.0 = 190.0) 0 blots Jason +0.0 (+ 190.0 = 190.0) 0 blots Xanadu +0.0 (+ 190.0 = 190.0) 0 blots Reform +2851.8 X +803.3 Sub-Nomic Contest Fund +30.0 Keep Your Money Contest Fund +28.0 GSHN Contest Fund +21.0 Coren's EV Sale Contest Fund +0.0 Reverse Auction Contest Fund +0.0 The Nomic Bank -3900.9 ** TOTAL ** +0.0 23 Jun 1995 at 08:10 GMT Andre OFF: Final Judgement CFJ 771 Andre +5.0 = +35.0 (+ 186.7 = 221.7) 0 blots The Nomic Bank -8.0 = -3908.9 Ian -5.0 = +0.0 (+ 190.0 = 190.0) 0 blots Kelly +5.0 = +23.0 (+ 230.3 = 253.3) 0 blots Troublemaker at Large +3.0 = +19.0 (+ 234.3 = 253.3) 0 blots 23 Jun 1995 at 08:52 GMT Andre OFF: Judgement CFJ 775 The Nomic Bank -3.0 = -3911.9 Zefram +3.0 = +9.9 (+ 180.1 = 190.0) 0 blots 23 Jun 1995 at 12:34 GMT Andre OFF: Judgement CFJ 779 The Nomic Bank -5.0 = -3916.9 Michael +5.0 = +14.0 (+ 207.7 = 221.7) 0 blots 23 Jun 1995 at 12:35 GMT Andre OFF: Judgement CFJ 780 The Nomic Bank -5.0 = -3921.9 Zefram +5.0 = +14.9 (+ 175.1 = 190.0) 0 blots 26 Jun 1995 at 00:00 GMT Salaries * Player Kelly receives Ambassador salary. * Player Vanyel receives Archivist salary. * Player Vanyel receives Assistant salary. * Player elJefe receives Assessor salary. * Player Andre receives Banker salary. * Player Andre receives Clerk of the Courts salary. * Player Vanyel receives Distributor salary. * Player Swann receives Herald salary. * Player Blob receives Notary salary. * Player KoJen receives Promotor salary. * Player KoJen receives Registrar salary. * Player Chuck receives Rulekeepor salary. * Player Kelly receives Scorekeepor salary. * Player Ian receives Tabulator salary. Andre +10.0 = +45.0 (+ 176.7 = 221.7) 0 blots The Nomic Bank -54.0 = -3975.9 Blob +3.0 = +6.0 (+ 184.0 = 190.0) 0 blots Chuck +5.0 = +5.0 (+ 216.7 = 221.7) 0 blots elJefe +5.0 = +16.0 (+ 205.7 = 221.7) 0 blots Ian +4.0 = +4.0 (+ 186.0 = 190.0) 0 blots Kelly +7.0 = +30.0 (+ 223.3 = 253.3) 0 blots KoJen +6.0 = +12.0 (+ 273.0 = 285.0) 0 blots Swann +3.0 = +12.0 (+ 178.0 = 190.0) 0 blots Vanyel +11.0 = +30.0 (+ 191.7 = 221.7) 0 blots 26 Jun 1995 at 09:34 GMT Andre OFF: Judgement CFJ 782 The Nomic Bank -5.0 = -3980.9 Dave Bowen +5.0 = +21.0 (+ 200.7 = 221.7) 0 blots 26 Jun 1995 at 09:39 GMT Andre OFF: Judgement CFJ 776 The Nomic Bank -5.0 = -3985.9 Vanyel +5.0 = +35.0 (+ 186.7 = 221.7) 0 blots 26 Jun 1995 at 11:00 GMT Andre OFF: Judgement CFJ 777 Andre -10.0 = +35.0 (+ 186.7 = 221.7) 0 blots The Nomic Bank +7.0 = -3978.9 Steve +3.0 = +14.0 (+ 207.7 = 221.7) 1 blots 26 Jun 1995 at 15:46 GMT KoJen OFF: Re: Deregister Inactive Player Player Blob (BLOB) leaves Office Notary becomes vacant The Nomic Bank +6.0 = -3972.9 Blob -6.0 = +0.0 27 Jun 1995 at 04:15 GMT Steve BUS: Transfer of Justiciarship Player elJefe becomes Justiciar 27 Jun 1995 at 08:13 GMT Andre OFF: Judgement CFJ 783 The Nomic Bank -3.0 = -3975.9 Vanyel +3.0 = +38.0 (+ 172.0 = 210.0) 0 blots 27 Jun 1995 at 10:57 GMT Swann BUS: Transfer Points--->Coins Reform +12.0 = +2863.8 Swann -12.0 = +0.0 (+ 180.0 = 180.0) 0 blots 28 Jun 1995 at 04:23 GMT Chuck BUS: Point Transfer Chuck -5.0 = +0.0 (+ 210.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Reform +5.0 = +2868.8 28 Jun 1995 at 08:34 GMT Andre OFF: Judgement CFJ 778 The Nomic Bank -3.0 = -3978.9 Xanadu +3.0 = +3.0 (+ 177.0 = 180.0) 0 blots 28 Jun 1995 at 09:22 GMT Andre OFF: Judgement CFJ 784 The Nomic Bank -3.0 = -3981.9 elJefe +3.0 = +19.0 (+ 191.0 = 210.0) 0 blots 28 Jun 1995 at 09:26 GMT Andre OFF: Judgement CFJ 770 The Nomic Bank -3.0 = -3984.9 Chuck +3.0 = +3.0 (+ 207.0 = 210.0) 0 blots 28 Jun 1995 at 20:42 GMT Chuck BUS: Re: OFF: Scorekeepor's Report Chuck -3.0 = +0.0 (+ 210.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Reform +3.0 = +2871.8 29 Jun 1995 at 08:07 GMT Troublemaker at Large BUS: Transfer Reform +19.0 = +2890.8 Troublemaker at Large -19.0 = +0.0 (+ 240.0 = 240.0) 0 blots 29 Jun 1995 at 15:03 GMT Chuck BUS: Currency Scam Contest New Contest Fund: Currency Scam (CSCM) 29 Jun 1995 at 17:15 GMT (n/a) BUS: More transfers *** disallowed: TAL -> CHUC, 199.5 points *** 0 points actually transferred 29 Jun 1995 at 19:12 GMT KoJen OFF: new Group New Group formed: Clubhouse (CLUB) 30 Jun 1995 at 08:40 GMT Steve BUS: Transfer of Viziership, and Going on Hold Player Steve goes on hold 30 Jun 1995 at 14:52 GMT (n/a) OFF: re-assignment CFJ 781 The Nomic Bank +10.0 = -3974.9 Michael -10.0 = +4.0 (+ 206.0 = 210.0) 0 blots 30 Jun 1995 at 16:57 GMT elJefe BUS: Point Transfer elJefe -19.0 = +0.0 (+ 210.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Reform +19.0 = +2909.8 30 Jun 1995 at 21:17 GMT elJefe Score changes from disowned proposals The Nomic Bank +5.0 = -3969.9 JonRock -5.0 = +1.0 (+ 179.0 = 180.0) 0 blots 30 Jun 1995 at 21:20 GMT elJefe Score changes from disowned proposals The Nomic Bank +5.0 = -3964.9 JonRock -5.0 = -4.0 (+ 184.0 = 180.0) 0 blots 30 Jun 1995 at 22:50 GMT Xanadu BUS: Re: BUS: Reassignment of Appeal of CFJ 784 Player Xanadu goes on hold 01 Jul 1995 at 02:00 GMT JonRock BUS: New Contest New Contest Fund: Here's What You SHOULD Have Done (HWYS) 01 Jul 1995 at 18:30 GMT elJefe OFF: Result of Proposal 1607 The Nomic Bank -8.0 = -3972.9 Dave Bowen +1.0 = +22.0 (+ 188.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Chuck +1.0 = +1.0 (+ 209.0 = 210.0) 0 blots elJefe +1.0 = +1.0 (+ 209.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Ian +1.0 = +5.0 (+ 175.0 = 180.0) 0 blots Kelly +1.0 = +31.0 (+ 209.0 = 240.0) 0 blots KoJen +1.0 = +13.0 (+ 257.0 = 270.0) 0 blots Steve +1.0 = +15.0 (+ 195.0 = 210.0) 1 blots Troublemaker at Large -1.0 = -1.0 (+ 241.0 = 240.0) 0 blots Vanyel +1.0 = +39.0 (+ 171.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Zefram +1.0 = +15.9 (+ 164.1 = 180.0) 0 blots 01 Jul 1995 at 21:25 GMT Coren BUS: Off Hold Player Coren goes off hold 03 Jul 1995 at 00:00 GMT Salaries * Player Kelly receives Ambassador salary. * Player Vanyel receives Archivist salary. * Player Vanyel receives Assistant salary. * Player elJefe receives Assessor salary. * Player Andre receives Banker salary. * Player Andre receives Clerk of the Courts salary. * Player Vanyel receives Distributor salary. * Player Swann receives Herald salary. * Player Kelly receives Notary salary. * Player KoJen receives Promotor salary. * Player KoJen receives Registrar salary. * Player Chuck receives Rulekeepor salary. * Player Kelly receives Scorekeepor salary. * Player Ian receives Tabulator salary. Andre +10.0 = +45.0 (+ 165.0 = 210.0) 0 blots The Nomic Bank -54.0 = -4026.9 Chuck +5.0 = +6.0 (+ 204.0 = 210.0) 0 blots elJefe +5.0 = +6.0 (+ 204.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Ian +4.0 = +9.0 (+ 171.0 = 180.0) 0 blots Kelly +10.0 = +41.0 (+ 199.0 = 240.0) 0 blots KoJen +6.0 = +19.0 (+ 251.0 = 270.0) 0 blots Swann +3.0 = +3.0 (+ 177.0 = 180.0) 0 blots Vanyel +11.0 = +50.0 (+ 160.0 = 210.0) 0 blots 03 Jul 1995 at 02:35 GMT Steve BUS: point transfer Reform +15.0 = +2924.8 Steve -15.0 = +0.0 (+ 210.0 = 210.0) 1 blots 03 Jul 1995 at 08:07 GMT Andre OFF: Final Judgement CFJ 780 The Nomic Bank -8.0 = -4034.9 elJefe +5.0 = +11.0 (+ 199.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Kelly +3.0 = +44.0 (+ 196.0 = 240.0) 0 blots Vanyel +5.0 = +55.0 (+ 155.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Zefram -5.0 = +10.9 (+ 169.1 = 180.0) 0 blots 03 Jul 1995 at 08:16 GMT Andre OFF: Final Judgement CFJ 782 Andre +3.0 = +48.0 (+ 162.0 = 210.0) 0 blots The Nomic Bank -11.0 = -4045.9 elJefe +5.0 = +16.0 (+ 194.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Kelly +3.0 = +47.0 (+ 193.0 = 240.0) 0 blots 04 Jul 1995 at 10:10 GMT Andre OFF: CFJ 776: Final Judgement Andre +3.0 = +51.0 (+ 159.0 = 210.0) 0 blots The Nomic Bank -11.0 = -4056.9 elJefe +5.0 = +21.0 (+ 189.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Kelly +3.0 = +50.0 (+ 190.0 = 240.0) 0 blots 04 Jul 1995 at 10:41 GMT Andre OFF: CFJ 786: Judgement The Nomic Bank -5.0 = -4061.9 Troublemaker at Large +5.0 = +4.0 (+ 236.0 = 240.0) 0 blots 05 Jul 1995 at 23:30 GMT end of score file Scores as of 05 Jul 1995 at 23:30 GMT: Vanyel +55.0 (+ 155.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Andre +51.0 (+ 159.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Kelly +50.0 (+ 190.0 = 240.0) 0 blots Dave Bowen +22.0 (+ 188.0 = 210.0) 0 blots elJefe +21.0 (+ 189.0 = 210.0) 0 blots KoJen +19.0 (+ 251.0 = 270.0) 0 blots Zefram +10.9 (+ 169.1 = 180.0) 0 blots Ian +9.0 (+ 171.0 = 180.0) 0 blots Chuck +6.0 (+ 204.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Michael +4.0 (+ 206.0 = 210.0) 0 blots Troublemaker at Large +4.0 (+ 236.0 = 240.0) 0 blots Swann +3.0 (+ 177.0 = 180.0) 0 blots Xanadu +3.0 (+ 177.0 = 180.0) 0 blots SugarWater +0.9 (+ 179.1 = 180.0) 0 blots Coren +0.0 (+ 180.0 = 180.0) 0 blots Jason +0.0 (+ 180.0 = 180.0) 0 blots Steve +0.0 (+ 210.0 = 210.0) 1 blots JonRock -4.0 (+ 184.0 = 180.0) 0 blots Reform +2924.8 X +803.3 Sub-Nomic Contest Fund +30.0 Keep Your Money Contest Fund +28.0 GSHN Contest Fund +21.0 Clubhouse +0.0 Coren's EV Sale Contest Fund +0.0 Currency Scam Contest Fund +0.0 Here's What You SHOULD Have Done Contest Fund +0.0 Reverse Auction Contest Fund +0.0 The Nomic Bank -4061.9 ** TOTAL ** +0.0 -- kelly martin Harm to the market for copyrighted work or its derivatives which is caused by a devastating critique which diminishes sales by convincing the public that the original work is of poor quality is not within the scope of copyright protection. -- from the ruling of the court in "New Era Publications Intl. ApS v Carol Publishing Group" (904 F.2d 161 (2nd Cir. 1990)) ======End of evidence. ====================================================================== Evidence added by Judge: Rule 1446/2 (Mutable, MI=1) Contests A contest is a subgame of Agora Nomic, having its own Name, Entry Fee, Regulations, Contestmaster, and Contest Fund. It is created when a Player posts to the Public Forum an announcement of the contest, including the Name and Regulations. Participants in the subgame are called Contestants of that contest. The player making the post becomes the Contestmaster. The Contestmaster for a given Contest is a Player who has responsibility for administering the subgame. He reports all currency transfers taking place under the Regulations, is the Executor of the Contest Fund, and maintains the Regulations. The Contest Fund is a Treasury, as provided for in other Rules. The owner of this Treasury is the Contest, and the Executor of this Treasury is, at all times, the Contestmaster of the Contest. The Regulations specify the operation of the Contest. All Contestants, and the Contestmaster, are bound by the Regulations except where these conflict with the Rules. They may also specify: 1. how a Contestmaster is replaced. However, no person may become Contestmaster without eir consent; 2. how the Currencies in the Contest Fund shall be spent, so long as this does not conflict with the Rules; 3. the amount of the Entry Fee for the Contest, in the form of units one or more Currency; 4. additional restrictions on Players to become Contestants, and conditions under which Contestants cease to be Contestants; 5. how the Regulations may be changed. If they do not so specify, the Regulations may not be changed. Whenever the Regulations are changed, the Contestmaster must post the new Regulations to the Public Forum, and no such change is effective until it is so posted; and 6. how the Contest may be dissolved. A Player becomes a Contestant by notifying the Contestmaster and paying the prescribed Entry Fee to the Contest Fund. A Contestant may quit a Contest at any time by so notifying the Contestmaster, or by so posting to the Public Forum. A Contestmaster may resign at any time by posting a message to that effect to the Public Forum, at which time e ceases to be Contestmaster. A contest is dissolved when there is no Contestmaster and no provision for replacing em, or upon unanimous agreement of the Contestmaster and all Contestants, or as otherwise provided in the rules, or in the Regulations. When this happens the Contest Fund is distributed as provided in the Regulations; if no provision is made the Fund is divided equally between the Contestants. If the Contest Regulations require a transfer to be made, but the Contest Fund has insufficient currencies to permit that transfer to be made, sufficient currencies to cover the transfer shall be involuntarily transferred from the Contestmaster's Treasury to the Contest Fund. The Contestmaster shall report this transfer to the appropriate Recordkeepors. No Blots shall be assigned by this Rule. History: Created by Proposal 1509, Mar. 24 1995 Amended(1) by Proposal 1574, Apr. 28 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1601, Jun. 19 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 1030/2 (Mutable, MI=1) Precedence Between Rules with Equal MI's If two or more Rules with the same Mutability Indices conflict with one another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence. If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1527, Mar. 24 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 217/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Judgements Must Accord with the Rules All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider Game Custom and the Spirit of the Game before applying other standards. History: Initial Mutable Rule 217, Jun. 30 1993 ---------------------------------------- Evidence from Assessor: From: jlc@camex.Camex.COM (Jeff Caruso) Message-Id: <9507131556.AA05985@zeus.Camex.COM> To: gb485@cleveland.freenet.edu Subject: More evidence in CFJ 788 (in case Ian did not forward this, I'm providing it to you) As Kelly suggested, I have examined my records for a notification from Chuck as to a transfer of EV's under the Regulations of the Currency Scam Contest. Chuck did not report such a transfer. Chuck did report a Reform Coin transfer to me in my role as Reform Vizier. This has nothing to do with EV's, but I'm including it so that you can see for yourself. He also made a COE after the Assessor's Report of July 1. After careful examination, I find that his COE also does not contain a report of a transfer, but simply claims that the reported number of EV's for Chuck and TAL is wrong. - elJefe ****************************************************************** Dr. Jeffrey L. Caruso Information International ======================================================================= Message from Chuck: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 12:58:21 -0500 To: nomic-business@teleport.com From: ccarroll@students.wisc.edu (Charles E. Carroll) Subject: Re: BUS: Transfers Sender: owner-nomic-business@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com >This leaves my Treasury empty, but for one Reform Coin. >I transfer that Coin to the Currency Scam >Contest Fund, as my Entry Fee. I become a Contestant of that >Contest. H. Reform Group Vizier, please note: according to the Currency Scam Contest Regulations, the Reform Group Coin in the C.S. Contest Fund is transferred to me. Chuck ======================================================================= Excerpt, Rule 1446: ... The Contestmaster for a given Contest is a Player who has responsibility for administering the subgame. He reports all currency transfers taking place under the Regulations, is the Executor of the Contest Fund, and maintains the Regulations. ... ======================================================================= Excerpt, Rule 1472: ... If an involuntary transfer is not reported to the Recordkeepor within seven days, or there is no Rule which requires a Player to report the involuntary transfer, the transfer is cancelled and does not take place. ... ======================================================================= Chuck's COE to the Assessor: Date: Sat, 1 Jul 95 14:13:33 CST From: "Charles E. Carroll" Message-Id: <51223.ccarroll@students.wisc.edu> To: nomic-business@teleport.com Subject: BUS: ASSESSOR: COE Sender: owner-nomic-business@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com >============================================================================= >Extra Votes: Official Report of the Recordkeepor >============================================================================= > >Name 6/1 6/6 6/12 6/19 7/1 >========== === === === === === >Andre 5 5 5 4 4 >Blob 3 3 3 3 -- (deregistered) >Dave Bowen 3 3 3 3 3 >Chuck 10 10 15 14 14 >Coren 12 12 12 12 12 >elJefe 0 0 0 0 5 >Ian 0 0 0 0 0 >JonRock 3 3 3 3 3 >Kelly 11 11 11 18 18 >KoJen 6 6 6 6 6 >Michael 40 40 40 40 36 >Pascal 3 3 3 3 3 >Steve 11 11 11 11 11 >Swann 14 14 14 14 14 >TAL 6 6 1 1 0 >Vanyel 4 3 3 2 2 >Xanadu 2 2 2 2 2 > >TOTAL 133 132 132 136 133 > >Number of Players currently Registered: 18 >Threshhold for EV creation : 90 > I claim that this Assessor's report is in error, in that Chuck should have 94 Extra Votes and TAL should have -80. First, I believe the transfer *is* specifically required by the Rules. After all, a 79-EV transfer would not have satisfied Rule 1446. How much more specific can you get? The allegation that the transfer was involuntary because it required action of TAL is also invalid. There is nothing in Rule 1472 that states or implies that a transfer dependent on the action of a Player is automatically voluntary. (True, it describes voluntary transfers, which are dependent on the action of a Player, but it does *not* say that all transfers dependent on a Player's action are voluntary.) If we were to follow this argument, the two point loss when declining to serve as Judgement would also be a voluntary transfer, as it takes place only upon the action of the Player! Chuck Andre From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Sun Jul 23 16:20:32 1995 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA00415 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 1995 16:06:57 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id JAA02102 for nomic-official-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jul 1995 09:58:12 -0700 Received: from audumla.students.wisc.edu (students.wisc.edu [144.92.104.66]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA02095 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 1995 09:58:09 -0700 Received: by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id LAA17124; 8.6.9W/42; Sun, 23 Jul 1995 11:58:09 -0500 X-NUPop-Charset: English Date: Sun, 23 Jul 95 11:55:00 CDT From: "Charles E. Carroll" Message-Id: <42905.ccarroll@students.wisc.edu> To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: CFJ 789: Final Judgement Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO Final Judgement of CFJ 789, now including Vanyel's Judgement Vanyel receives 3 Points for Judgement. ============================================================ CFJ 789 Caller: Kelly Statement: Chuck violated Rule 1454, by selecting Rule 106 to be infected by the Virus in a manner other than that specified in the Rules. Barred: Chuck Requested Injunction: It is requested that the Judge enjoin Chuck to retract his illegal move. Judge: Andre Judgement: TRUE Injunction: I request Chuck to retract eir illegal move, that is, to choose, but now in the right way, a Virus Number for the Nomic Week in which this erroneous Virus Report was issued. pro-Speaker: KoJen Judgement: FALSE pro-COTC: Vanyel Judgement: FALSE Justiciar: Steve Judgement: FALSE Final Judgement: FALSE Injunction: none Effects reported by COTC (* indicates new to this report) Andre receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement Steve receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement KoJen receives 3 Points for Judgement Andre loses 5 Points for having his Judgement overturned *Vanyel receives 3 Points for Judgement ============================================================ ============================================================ History: Called by Kelly, July 10 1995, 10:17 EST5 Assigned to Andre, July 11 1995, 10:25 UTC Judged TRUE by Andre, July 14 1995, 11:12 METDST Appealed by Chuck, timestamp incorrect Appealed by Steve, July 17 1995, 17:16 +1000 (EST) Appealed by Vanyel, July 17 1995, 03:14 -0500 (CDT) Assigned to Kelly as Speaker, July 17 1995, 09:15 UTC Assigned to Andre as CotC, July 17 1995, 09:15 UTC Assigned to Steve as Justiciar, July 17 1995, 09:15 UTC Judged FALSE by Steve, July 18 1995, 12:39 +1000 (EST) Assigned to KoJen as pro-Speaker, July 18 1995, 00:24 EST5 Assigned to Vanyel as pro-CotC, July 19 1995, 08:25 METDST Judged FALSE by KoJen Fri, 21 Jul 95 16:23:39 -0400 Final Judgement of FALSE published Sat, 22 Jul 95 16:03:26 CDT Judged FALSE by Vanyel Sun, 23 Jul 1995 02:08:53 -0500 (CDT) ============================================================= Arguments of Caller (Kelly): Rule 1454 requires the Rulekeepor to select a _random_ integer in the range [M,N], where M and N are, respecctively, the number of the lowest and highest numbered Rules at the beginning of that week. Rule 1079 requires that the any "random" selection be made such that the selection be made such that each possible choice has equal probability of being selected. Chuck's procedure for selecting an integer in the required range clearly does not result in a randomly-selected integer as defined by the Rules; the number of possible outcomes of the selection mandated by 1479 is nearly 1400, and, as TAL has postulated, the number of ingredients in a random foodstuff more closely approximates a Poisson distribution, rather than the uniform distribution called for by 1079. Hence, this selection procedure has a much greater probability of selecting the integers at the lower end of the distribution than those at the higher end, and is therefore not a "random" selection as defined by the Rules. KoJen's use of this selection method does not violate 1079 because KoJen employed an arbitrary mapping between the generated integer and the set of objects to select from. The inclusion of such an arbitrary mapping introduces a randomicity which is not present in the case under consideration. A finding of TRUE on this CFJ should in no way invalidate the methodology employed by KoJen in selecting a new Notary. ============================================================== Arguments of Judge (Andre): In the case of CFJ 789 I judge TRUE. I think we all agree that Chuck's method was not random in the sense of the Rules. Eir method gave a far higher chance to yield one of the lower integers in the given range, thus the choice was not random as described in Rule 1079. However, did e choose a Virus Number, or was e posting a completely bogus report? In my opinion by clearly specifying it as such he HAD selected a Virus Number, and done so in an incorrect way. I do agree there could be a discussion at this point, however. =============================================================== Arguments of Justiciar (Steve): There is a broad consensus that Chuck did not use a random process in his attempt to select a Virus Number (see the evidence adduced with the original CFJ). However, I part company from Judge Andre when he concludes from this that Chuck violated Rule 1454. For the wording of Rule 1454 is quite clear: nothing is a Virus Number that is not randomly selected. Since Chuck did not select a random number, he did not select a Virus Number. Hence he did not select Rule 106 to be infected, despite his claim to the contrary. The correct conclusion to draw, therefore, is that Chuck posted an erroneous or misleading Report. However, nothing in Rule 1454 prohibits Chuck from doing this. So the Statement is FALSE. ============================================================ Arguments of pro-Speaker (KoJen) Clearly Chuck did not use a process which could yield any of the outcomes with equal probability, as required by Rule 1079. So he has not yet chosen any Rule to be infected, and is not in violation for infecting an incorrect Rule. (As an aside, he *is* actually in violation of Rule 1454 for another reason: By failing to choose *any* Rule to be infected, he is in violation of Rule 1454 and the "As Soon As Possible" Rule. But that is not the subject of this CFJ.) ============================================================ Arguments of pro-COTC (Vanyel) In Chuck's first message alleging to be the Virus Report, he said that Rule 106 was infected. However, as he did not select a random number in the correct range, there was no Virus Number then, and no Rule was infected. There is no rule against counting the number of ingredients on a soup can, diddling with the number and posting the whole mess to nomic-business. And, there is no rule against posting that a rule was infected... thus, Chuck didn't violate rule 1454. ============================================================ Evidence provided by Caller (Kelly): I. Rule 1079/0 II. Rule 1454/0 III. Chuck's Report of Virus Activity -------I. Rule 1079/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Definition of "Random" All occurrences of the word "random" or forms of it shall be taken to mean "any one of the choices with equally distributed possibility for each choice". -------II. Rule 1454/0 (Mutable, MI=1) The Virus There is a Nomic Entity called the Virus which has the effect of altering the texts of Rules, in the manner and under the conditions set out below. This process is known as "infection". The effect of the Virus on a Rule, when it has an effect, is that of a non-Proposed Amendment to that Rule. Thus, the Virus can only be effective inasmuch as it satisfies the Rules for the effectiveness of non-Proposed Rule Changes. The selection of the Rule to be infected by the Virus occurs as follows: as soon as possible after the beginning of each Nomic Week, the Rulekeepor shall select a random integer in the range [M,N], where M and N are, respectively, the numbers of the lowest and highest numbered Rules at the beginning of that week. Call a number selected in this way a Virus Number. If the Virus Number selected is the number of a Rule, then that Rule is infected as described below, and no further Virus Numbers are selected in that week. If the Virus Number is not the number of a Rule, then a new Virus Number is selected as above, unless five such Virus Numbers (which are not the numbers of a Rule) have already been selected in that week. In that case, the Virus is ineffective and no Rule is infected in that week. The Rulekeepor shall publish the results of the selection process in the Public Forum within 24 hours of the completion of that process. If a Rule has been infected, e shall announce the number of that Rule. If no Rule has been infected, then e shall that no Rule has been infected. An infected Rule is amended in the following way, given that other Rules permit it: if the Rule does not already contain the sentence "This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.", then that sentence is appended to the Rule. If the Rule already contains the sentence, then the sentence is deleted from the Rule. There is one exception to the above: if this Rule is the infected Rule, then this Rule automatically Repeals itself. History: Created by Proposal 1573, Apr. 28 1995 -------III. X-NUPop-Charset: English Date: Mon, 10 Jul 95 08:42:44 CST Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com From: "Charles E. Carroll" To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: Virus Report In the past I have used a pseudo-random number generator to select the virus numbers. Today I have decided to use a different method. For each number to be selected, I will select an item from my kitchen. I will count the number of ingredients, take that number modulo 1382, and add 101. This gives a number in the range 101-1482 inclusive. The first item is Nile Spice Black Bean Soup. It has 5 ingredients. 106 is a Rule, but since it has MI=3, it is not amended. (I have added a line to the history noting the infection, however.) Rule 106 now reads: ====== Rule 106/0 (Semimutable, MI=3) Adopting Proposals All Proposals made in the proper way shall be voted upon. A Proposal shall be adopted if and only if it receives the required number of votes and if Quorum is achieved. History: Initial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994 Amended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994 Renumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994 Infected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995 Infected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, Jul. 10 1995 ====== Chuck ============================================================= End of CFJ 789 =============================================================