From: To: agora-off Subject: OFF: CFJ 1177 Judged FALSE Date: Monday, November 15, 1999 2:57 AM ====================================================================== CFJ 1177 The Proposal "Voters and Legislators 1.1", as Proposed by Peekee on the 6th of November 1999, was made Disinterested by Peekee on the 9th of November 1999. ====================================================================== Called by: Peekee Judge: Lee Judgement: FALSE Judge selection: Eligible: Lee, Michael, Murphy, oerjan, Palnatoke, t Not eligible: Caller: Peekee Barred: Wes Had their turn: Blob, Chuck, Crito, Elysion, harvel, Kolja Already served: - Defaulted: - By request: - On Hold: elJefe, Steve ====================================================================== History: Called by Peekee: 11 Nov 1999 10:18:26 +0000 Assigned to Lee: 13 Nov 1999 10:58:46 -0800 Judged FALSE by Lee: 14 Nov 1999 21:14:23 -0600 Judgement Distributed: As of this message ===================================================================== Caller's Arguments: Considering, Rule 1728/4 (Power=1) "Actions Without N Objections" (a) When the Rules specify that an action may be performed "Without N Objections", where N is an integer between one and five inclusive, that action may be legally performed under the following conditions: Rule 1623/10 (Power=1), "Disinterested Proposals" States that the Proposer of a Proposal may make it disinterested without Objection. In game tradition this is taken as meaning "Without 1 Objection". (1) The Player who seeks to perform the action has announced eir intent to perform that action not fewer than four days before, nor more than fourteen days before, the performance of the action, and this announcement must unambiguously describe the action to be performed; I announced my intent to make the Proposal "Voters and Legislators 1.1" Disinterested, on the 5th of November. This was in the correct period of time. The description unambiguously described the action of making a Proposal titled "Voters and Legislators 1.1" Disinterested. (2) The action performed must match exactly the action described in the announcement made under subdivision (a)(1) of this Rule; I made the Proposal "Voters and Legislators 1.1" Disinterested. This matches exactly with the action I described in the my statement of intent. (3) The Rule which authorizes the performance of that action Without N Objections must explicitly state which Player or Players are authorized to perform that action; and It does. (4) During the time between the announcement made under subdivision (a)(1) of this Rule and the performance of the action itself, fewer than N Players have posted, in the Public Forum, Objections to the performance of that action. They did not. The rest of the Rule is largely unimportant in this case. Thus, I was legally entitled to make the Proposal "Voters and Legislators 1.1" Disinterested on the 9th of November, and as such my attempt to do so was successful. (For further arguments refer to a-d) ====================================================================== Evidence attached by the Caller: ====================================================================== Judge's Arguments: Many a slip between cup and lip. Since the proposal did not exist at the time that he refers to it as a proposal and he does not refer to it in a way that unambiguously referred to a unique proposal I think his attempt to declare intent fails. Perhaps he could have referred to it in a less ambiguous manner. Perhaps that would not have mattered as it was not a proposal at that time. I think the reference is ambiguous in various ways, so i judge false. ======================================================================