From - Wed May 17 14:55:43 2000 Return-Path: Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au ([131.170.42.16]) by mx6.mindspring.com (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id shur4v.agl.37kbi14 for ; Sun, 14 May 2000 23:18:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA27029 for agora-discussion-list; Mon, 15 May 2000 03:07:06 GMT Received: from fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (fw-in.serc.rmit.edu.au [131.170.42.1]) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA27023 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 03:07:03 GMT Received: (from mail@localhost) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id NAA50068 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 13:28:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from silas-2.cc.monash.edu.au(130.194.1.7) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma050064; Mon, 15 May 00 13:28:52 +1000 Received: (from gardner@localhost) by silas-2.cc.monash.edu.au (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA28959 for agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au; Mon, 15 May 2000 13:12:29 +1000 (EST) From: Steve Gardner Message-Id: <200005150312.NAA28959@silas-2.cc.monash.edu.au> Subject: DIS: Repost of CFJ 1111 To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (Agora Nomic Discussion List) Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 13:12:29 +1000 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Precedence: bulk Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 X-UIDL: shur4v.agl.37kbi14 ========================================================================== CFJ 1111 The Voting Period of Proposals 3810-3812 has ended. ========================================================================== Called by: Blob Judge: Steve Judgement: Judge selection: Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Crito, elJefe, General Chaos, Kolja A., lee, Macross, Morendil, Murphy, Oerjan, Proglet, Steve Not eligible: Caller: Blob Barred: - Already served: - Defaulted: - By request: - On Hold: Michael ========================================================================== History: Called by Blob: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 11:49:26 +1100 Assigned to Steve: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 12:37:14 +1100 Judged TRUE by Steve: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 11:51:52 +1100 Judgement published: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:03:35 +1100 ========================================================================== Caller's Arguments: Refer to the arguments for CFJ 1110. ========================================================================== Judge's Arguments: I find that the Statement is TRUE. As I am a Justice in the Appeal of CFJ 1110, and as time is pressing, I will restrict myself here to those matters necessary for dealing with this Statement alone, and reserve discussion of the more complicated matter of CFJ 1110 for my Judgement in the Appeal of that CFJ. To recapitulate briefly, the facts of the case are these: Proposals 3810-3812 were distributed on Mon, 30 Nov 1998 07:29:29 GMT, when R693/3 was still in effect. Other things being equal, the Voting Periods for these Proposals would have concluded 10 days later, on Thu, 10 Dec. I borrow Morendil's useful enumeration of the possibilities, where D is Mon, 30 Nov 1998 at 07:29:29, the time of distribution; (a) the VP ended at D + 10 days, due to R639/3 (b) the VP ended at D + 7 days, due to R639/4 (c) the VP ended at the time P3809 took effect (d) the VP ended at some other time (e) the VP never ended This CFJ was called at Mon, 14 Dec 1998 11:49:26 +1100, and R451 requires me to determine the truth or falsity of the Statement at that time. Since the times referred to in (a), (b) and (c) are all prior to the calling of this CFJ, we need not distinguish between them here. If any one of them is correct, then a Judgement of TRUE is called for. We need not take (d) seriously as a possibility, there being no support for it anywhere in the Rules. Its inclusion is merely for the sake of completeness. This leaves only (e) to deal with. If (e) is correct, then a Judgement of FALSE is warranted. Whatever plausibility (e) has derives from the view that the end of the Voting Period is an event, and that an event occurs at a time if and only if the Rules at that time say that the event occurs at that time. But an analogy of Crito's shows the difficulty of treating the end of the Voting Period as an event. Consider a Rule infected by the Viral sentence, "This Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall have no effect. This paragraph is deleted from this Rule two weeks after it is added to this Rule." Ten days after the infection occurs, the Rule is amended so that "two weeks" is replaced by "one week". Here, the end of the Voting Period and the end of the infection period are analogous. But I think we would, rightly, by very reluctant to say that the end of the infection period had never occurred, and that the Rule continued to have no effect, just because at no time did the Rules say that the infection period should end at that time. If we were to say that, we should have to say the same thing in the case where the Viral sentence were removed completely from the Rule while the Rule was infected, an absurd outcome! Instead, we might say that the infection lasted a week, or that it lasted ten days. These possibilities correspond to (b) and (c) above; as I noted before, we need not distinguish betweem them here. But the analogy shows that (e) is not correct, and that a Judgement of TRUE is therefore warranted. -- Steve Gardner | Appearances to the contrary, Dept. of Philosophy, Monash Uni. | things are just what they seem. gardner@silas.cc.monash.edu.au |