========================================================================== CFJ 1121 The Proposal known as "3830" (see below) was in fact distributed, but it has not received a number as required by Rule 109. ========================================================================== Called by: Vlad Judge: elJefe Judgement: FALSE Judge selection: Eligible: Crito, elJefe, Michael, Morendil Not eligible: Caller: Vlad Barred: Chuck, General Chaos Had their turn: Ørjan, Macross, Blob, General Chaos, Murphy, Peekee, Vlad, Kolja A., Andre Already served: - Defaulted: - By request: - On Hold: Ørjan ========================================================================== History: Called by Vlad: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 18:51:00 -0600 Assigned to elJefe: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 18:35:43 +1100 Judged FALSE by elJefe: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 00:45:08 -0500 Judgement published: as of this message ========================================================================== Caller's Arguments: I use the term "3830" to denote the Proposal G. Chaos tried to distribute with Proposals 3831 and 3832 in his message of 7 Feb., which he marked with the designation 3830, entitled "The Grand Agoran Tournament". This message fit all the requirements for distribution, except that of having been given an official number as required by 109. However, by 1770, such omission does not affect the legality of the Proposal's distribution. Therefore, Proposal "3830" was distributed, but without a number as required by 109 (I will hereafter refer to this as the "109 number". Now, the second issue, is whether "3830" does currently have a 109 number, namely, 3833. G. Chaos is correct that an Officer does not have to issue a COE to correct his own report; by CFJ 919 any correction is to be considered a COE and a response. The question is, has G. Chaos issued such a correction? No. He proceeded to redistribute Proposal "3830" a second time, giving this second issue the number of 3833. Nowhere in the redistribution did he indicate that this was a correction of his previous message. Can we consider this an implicit corection? No. The correction required was the assignment of a 109 number to the already distributed Proposal "3830". However, G. Chaos' messages to the PF indicate that he felt "3830" had in fact not been distributed at all, and that 3833 was a seperate distribution. In fact, now we know that it was the second distribution of the Proposal. So the correction, viz. the assignment of a 109 number to "3830", has never occurred. I also request the Judge issue an Order to Compel to General Chaos requiring him to assign Proposal "3830" a number as required by Rule 109. ========================================================================== Judge's Arguments: I judge FALSE. I find that the Proposal was indeed distributed as the Statement suggests, but at the time the CFJ was called it had been given a number, namely 3833. This judgement is based on the following findings, some of which relate to Caller's argument. 1. The Promotor attempted to distribute Vlad's proposal "The Grand Agoran Tournament" at two separate times on 08 Feb 1999 (GMT), namely at 01:22:57 GMT ("OFF: Proposals 3830-3832") and at 02:03:24 GMT ("OFF: Proposal 3833") Note that this does not mean that there are two Proposals; under 1483 there was no creation of any new Proposal with the same text. 2. At the time of the first message, the Promotor attempted to give the number 3830 to the Proposal, but this number had already been used before, and the attempted assignment failed as contrary to Rule 109. By Rule 1770, the "legal effects" of distribution took place anyway. These include the start of the Voting Period on the unnumbered Proposal (Rule 693) and its removal from the Proposal Queue (Rule 1770). 3. Even though the Promotor failed to follow Rule 109 at the time of distribution, this does not deprive a later assignment of a number to the unnumbered Proposal from having effect. Game Custom and (I believe) earlier Judgements have held that a Rule which prescribes a Player action "at" a particular time does not thereby prevent an omitted action from being performed at a later time (though other Rules may explicitly prevent it). Indeed, the Caller is assuming this in eir request for an order to compel such an action. 4. The caller argues that the Promotor did not give the number 3833 to the Proposal, but to the "second issue" of the Proposal. This is wrong: numbers are given to Proposals, not to 'issues' of Proposals. As noted, there are not two Proposals under discussion but only one. 5. The second message gives evidence that sometime after 01:22:57 GMT and no later than 02:03:24 GMT, the Promotor attempted to give number 3833 to the Proposal. The Promotor's mistaken belief about the status of the Proposal does not affect the assignment of the number. 6. Rule 109 requires the number to be the least integer greater than the numbers previously assigned. After the first message, 3831 and 3832 had already been assigned. So 3833 is the correct number, and the attempt to give it to the Proposal was successful. DICTUM: With regards to Vlad's vote: reasonable (if slightly inattentive) people could be confused about which Proposal was meant by "Proposal 3830" in the context in which Vlad attempted to vote. Thus I could support a judgement that Vlad's attempt to vote was ambiguous. Regards, elJefe, J. ========================================================================== Documentation attached by Caller: Text of Rule 109: Rule 109/3 (Power=2) Proposal Numbers At the time e distributes it, the Promotor shall give each 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. @@@@@@@ Text of Rule 1770: Rule 1770/2 (Power=1) Distributing Proposals Each week, the Promotor shall distribute a batch of Proposals. These are the only Proposals e is allowed to distribute that week. If the number of Proposals in the Proposal Queue with a Priority greater than zero is less than or equal to the Batch Size, then the batch shall consist of all such Proposals. If the number of Proposals in the Proposal Queue is greater than the Batch Size, then the batch shall consist of those Proposals in the Queue with the highest Priority such that the number of Proposals distributed is equal to the Batch Size. Once a Proposal is distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Queue. The Promotor shall distribute each proposal in the batch to the Public Forum, accompanied by its Number and the identity of its Proposing Entity. The failure of the Promotor to distribute any of the above accompaniments with a Proposal does not deprive the distribution of the Proposal of any legal effect. A Proposal is only considered to be legally distributed if it is explicitly marked as such. The Promotor is permitted to publish the text of undistributed Proposals without necessarily distributing them. @@@@@@@ Distribution of "3830", 3831, and 3832 (text of Proposals not included): Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 20:22:57 -0500 From: Scott Goehring scot-@poverty.bloomington.in.us Reply-To: agora-discussio-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au To: agora-officia-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Subject: OFF: Proposals 3830-3832 >From the Office of the Promotor: PROPOSALS 3830 THRU 3832 There are three proposals distributed as of this report, numbered from 3830 to 3832. The Voting Periods of these Proposals commence as of this message and end seven days later unless otherwise noted. Voting on these Proposals will cost 1.2 VTs. ====================================================================== No. Proposer AI Name 3830 Vlad 1 The Grand Agoran Tournament 3831 Steve 2 Repeal Impeachment 3832 General Chaos 3 Summary Adoption ====================================================================== @@@@@@@ Second distribution of my Proposal (text of Proposal trimmed): Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 21:03:24 -0500 From: Scott Goehring scot-@poverty.bloomington.in.us Reply-To: agora-discussio-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au To: agora-officia-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Subject: OFF: Proposal 3833 >From the Office of the Promotor: There is one proposal distributed as of this report, numbered 3833. The Voting Period of this Proposal commences as of this message and ends seven days later unless otherwise noted. Voting on this Proposal will cost 1.2 VTs. ====================================================================== No. Proposer AI Name 3833 Vlad 1 The Grand Agoran Tournament ====================================================================== @@@@@@@ G. Chaos' explanation of his reissue of my Proposal: Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 20:58:21 -0500 From: Scott Goehring scot-@poverty.bloomington.in.us Reply-To: agora-discussio-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au To: agora-busines-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Subject: BUS: Oops, again Upon reviewing the Rules, it appears to me to appear that Vlad's Proposal has not yet been distributed, and the other two have. While the Rules require that I distribute only the Proposals in the Batch, it does not say that I have to distribute them all at one time. Therefore, I will distribute Vlad's Proposal separately as Proposal 3833 in a few minutes. My apologies for the confusion. (It also says that I don't have to distribute the Proposals in the batch in any particular order. Hm.) @@@@@@@ Annotation to Rule 1431, defining COEs: [CFJ 919: A PF message correcting an earlier PF message by the same player constitutes both a COE and the Response.] ==========================================================================