====================================================================== CFJ 1090 No Proposal entitled "The Great Officer's Veto Scam Proposal" has been distributed. ====================================================================== Judge: Michael Justices: Crito, Blob, Jester Judgement: TRUE Eligible: Antimatter, Blob, Chuck, Crito, elJefe, Harlequin, Jester, Kolja A., Michael, Morendil, Oerjan, Steve, Swann, Time Agent Not eligible: Caller: Murphy Barred: - Disqualified: - On hold: General Chaos, Sherlock ---------------------------------------------------------------------- First Appeal eligibility: On Hold: elJefe, General Chaos Originally ineligible: Sherlock, Murphy Judge: Michael Default Justices: Steve, Morendil Eligible: Antimatter, Blob, Chuck, Crito, Harlequin, Jester, Kolja A., Oerjan, Swann, Time Agent (Rolled an eight on 0-9 sided dice: selection is Swann) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Second Appeal eligibility: On Hold: elJefe, General Chaos, Oerjan Originally ineligible: Sherlock, Murphy Judge: Michael Already served: Swann, Steve, Morendil Eligible: Antimatter, Blob, Chuck, Crito, Harlequin, Jester, Kolja A., Time Agent (Rolled a three on 0-7 sided dice: selection is Crito) (Rolled a zero on 0-6 sided dice: selection is Antimatter) (Rolled a five on 0-5 sided dice: selection is Time Agent) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Third Appeal eligibility: On Hold: General Chaos, Oerjan, Antimatter Originally ineligible: Sherlock, Murphy Judge: Michael Already served: Swann, Steve, Morendil Existing Justice: Crito Eligible: Blob, Chuck, elJefe, Harlequin, Jester, Kolja A. (Rolled a zero on 0-5 sided dice: selection is Blob) (Rolled a three on 0-4 sided dice: selection is Jester) ====================================================================== History: Called by Murphy, 18 Mar 1998 01:50:52 -0800 Assigned to Michael, 19 Mar 1998 11:34:04 +0000 Judged TRUE, 26 Mar 1998 09:26:50 +0000 Published, 27 Mar 1998 11:32:14 +0000 Appealed by Blob, Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:24:42 +1100 (EST) Appealed by Antimatter, Fri, 27 Mar 1998 20:52:20 +0000 Appealed by General Chaos, Sat, 28 Mar 1998 07:55:09 -0500 Appeals process begins, Sat, 28 Mar 1998 13:44:21 +0000 All Justices default, Sat, 4 Apr 1998 13:44:21 +0000 Fresh Appeals Board formed and announced, Tue, 7 Apr 1998 09:37:43 +0100 Crito SUSTAINS the judgement, Mon, 13 Apr 1998 10:56:56 -0400 Justices Time Agent and Antimatter default Replacement Justices chosen and announced, Thu, 16 Apr 1998 08:48:24 +0100 Blob SUSTAINS the judgement, Thu, 16 Apr 1998 18:02:02 +1000 Jester SUSTAINS the judgement, Sat, 18 Apr 1998 20:45:41 +1000 Final decision reported, Sat, 18 Apr 1998 12:40:58 +0100 ====================================================================== Appelate decisions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Crito: I have nothing to add to the arguments that have already been posted in the discussions related to this CFJ. I find no flaws in the argument presented by the original Judge, Michael, and therefore, I vote to Sustain this Judgement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Blob: Apart from referring the reader to the excellent analysis made by the Justices on the closely related CFJ 1089, I also have nothing to add to this CFJ. I find the judge's reasoning to be correct, and vote to Sustain this Judgement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jester: I have previously stated that I am a bit of a stickler for the letter of the law. The Proposal posted for voting was not the same as the Proposal originally submitted. Therefore, I feel bound to uphold the judgement. ====================================================================== Original Judgement: TRUE Reasons and arguments: The definition of Proposal is in Rule 1483, power = 1. A Proposal is created whenever a Proposing Entity delivers some collection of text to the Promotor with the clear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal. The collection of text thus delivered is a new Proposal, and the Proposing Entity which delivered it its Proposer. A collection of text is said to be Proposed when it becomes a Proposal. The delivery of the text of an existing Proposal which was Proposed less than three weeks previously does not cause that text to become another Proposal, unless there is a clear indication that that text is intended to become a duplicate of a prior Proposal. In this case, the Proposing Entity must specifically acknowledge that the intended new Proposal is a duplicate of an existing Proposal. Further, the Promotor's distribution of previously undistributed Proposals never causes the Proposing of new Proposals. The issue of contention in the statement of the CFJ comes about because a piece of text presumed to have been a Proposal was distributed by Promotor Blob at time Wed, 4 Mar 1998 13:14:12 +1100 (EST), in an e-mail message with ID: <980304021412.8886@cse.unsw.edu.au>. However, the text distributed as Proposal 3710 included the following: This Rule commemorates the Glorious and Dramatic Wins achieved by the Members of the Threat, Blob, elJefe, General Chaos and Steve, with the passage of Proposal , which were made possible primarily by exploiting a loophole in the Rule 'Officer's Veto'. I shall now argue that this paragraph was not present in any collection of text delivered to the Promotor with the clear indication that this text was intended to become a Proposal. Who might have delivered such a text? Swann certainly did not deliver this text to Blob. He did deliver a similar text, but it was sufficiently different not to be legally the same. (The only rules allowing for different texts to be considered legally same are R754, which talks only of differences of spelling, grammar and dialect, and R1339 which talks of variation of white-space and capitalisation in rule change specifications.) Could Blob have delivered the text to himself in such a way as to satisfy the conditions in R1483? This is a more interesting question. However, I do not believe that this could have happened for two reasons: i) We have no evidence to suggest that Blob at any stage initiated the delivery of the text in question, except possibly when he distributed the text in the message referred to above. We rule out this latter possibility, because as is clear from the reactions of the Players of Agora (who voted on the putative Proposal), there was no clear indication that this text was intended to become a Proposal. Rather the distribution of this text (including its delivery to Blob via the Public Forum) convinced everyone that a real Proposal was before them and had been distributed. ii) Even if Blob did manage to somehow deliver the text to himself prior to his ditribution of it to the Public Forum, his subsequent behaviour again suggests that there was no clear indication attached to the text that this was intended to become a Proposal. If there had been such an indication with the text, then he would not have distributed it under Swann's name, and would not have attributed it an Urgency that it did not have. As the text distributed in the message referred to above is the only possible instance of a Proposal being distributed with the name in question, and as I have ruled out this possibility, I conclude that the statement of the CFJ is TRUE. ====================================================================== (Caller's) Arguments: Promotor Blob's attempt to distribute this Proposal included a typo not present in Swann's Proposal submission. This statement claims that, therefore, the text in Blob's message was not a Proposal at all; in particular, that Blob had not implicitly submitted that text as a Proposal ======================================================================