From: To: agora-off Subject: OFF: CFJ 1183 Appeal SUSTAINS Date: Thursday, December 09, 1999 4:06 PM ====================================================================== CFJ 1183 The Infraction of Debt Voting cannot be committed by any Player. ====================================================================== Called by: Steve Judge: Wes Judgement: FALSE Appeal Justices: Kolja, Elysion, Murphy Appeal Decision: SUSTAINED Judge selection: Eligible: Wes Not eligible: Caller: Steve Barred: Peekee Had their turn: Blob, Chuck, Crito, Elysion, harvel, Kolja, Lee, Michael, Murphy, Oerjan, Palnatoke, Peekee, Steve, t Already served: - Defaulted: - By request: Kolja On Hold: elJefe, Steve ====================================================================== History: Called by Steve: 26 Nov 1999 13:49:08 +1100 Assigned to Wes: 28 Nov 1999 12:12:58 -0800 Judged FALSE by Wes: 28 Nov 1999 15:35:33 -0800 Judgement Distributed: Appealed by Steve: 29 Nov 1999 11:02:32 +1100 Appealed by harvel: 28 Nov 1999 19:12:05 EST Appealed by Blob: 29 Nov 1999 17:15:00 +1100 Appeal Distributed: 02 Dec 1999 14:45:34 -0800 Elysion OVERTURNS: 04 Dec 1999 14:38:06 -0500 Murphy SUSTAINS: 05 Dec 1999 01:15:51 -0800 Kolja SUSTAINS: 09 Dec 1999 22:24:52 +0100 Appeal Decision Distributed: As of this message ===================================================================== Caller's Arguments: My argument is that Rule 1824 (Debt Voting) is completely broken due to inaccurate language employed in it. Here is the full text of the Rule: Rule 1824/0 (Power=1) Debt Voting An entity for which, at the beginning of a given Nomic week, there is at least one Overdue Payment Order naming it as Payor which was executed originally for the purpose of paying for Voting upon Proposals commits the Infraction of Debt Voting. This Infraction shall be reported by the Recordkeepor for Voting Tokens, and shall bear the penalty of the denial of Voting Privileges for a period of two weeks. The Rule refers to Overdue Payment Orders "executed originally for the purpose of *paying* for Voting upon Proposals" (emphasis added). But there aren't - and cannot be - any such Payment Orders. The PO issued by the Assessor after a Player has voted and which names that Player as payor is executed for the purpose of *billing* that Player for a quantity of Voting Tokens (cf. the definition of "bill" in R1479), not for the purpoe of paying for that Player's votes. The Player emself must pay for eir votes by satisfying the PO with an appropriate Transfer Order. Since the kind of Payment Order described by R1824 cannot exist, the Infraction of Debt Voting cannot be committed. ====================================================================== Evidence attached by the Caller: ====================================================================== Judge's Arguments: Since this CFJ revolves essentially around the definition of the word "purpose," we decided to check and see what Webster's had to say: Purpose: n. 1: something set up as an object or end to be attained, 2: a subject under discussion or an action in course of execution Now this does seem to be a rather broad definition of the word. We then decided to check the Ruleset for any further clarification on the Game Customs regarding this word, and we found only one reference that seemed relevant: Rule 1823/0 (Power=1) Combining Payment Orders [snip] Payment Orders to be executed for the purpose of paying for Voting upon Proposals may not be combined by this Rule with Payment Orders executed for any other purpose. This gives us another reference for PO's executed for the exact same purpose, but does not really go very far in providing any specifics, and so does not really help us arrive at a coherant Judgement. We are therefore forced to rely on the standard English definition of the word, as provided by Webster's. Purpose: n. 1: something set up as an object or end to be attained, 2: a subject under discussion or an action in course of execution This definition, again, seems extremely broad. The end result of the PO to which the caller of this CFJ refers does claim to be to cause Voting Debts to be paid for. The action of paying for the Voting Debt is definitely in the course of execution due to the issuing of the Assessor's PO. Thus the PO's in question are indeed for the purpose of paying for Voting. It is therefore our Judgement that the above Statement is FALSE. ====================================================================== Justice Elysion's Arguments: I find Steve's reasoning in eir Amicus Brief to be quite persuasive. Additionally, suppose such a PO is executed, but nothing additional occurs. What has been accomplished? Certainly, the votes haven't been paid for. The player has been billed for eir votes, and the PO may have been executed in order to get someone to pay for votes, but has not been executed for the purpose of paying for votes. I do agree with Wes in that the rules are vague about this important issue, and I would like to see it (and any other similar ambiguities) resolved with a clean-up proposal. I may even eventually proto one myself. I therefore rule to OVERTURN Wes's judgement to TRUE. ====================================================================== Justice Murphy's Arguments: Wes correctly points out that a Voting PO can have both a direct purpose (billing for votes) and an indirect purpose (causing votes to be paid for), and that Rule 1824 (Debt Voting) simply says "purpose" which can reasonably be interpreted either way. Since Wes's Judgement is not clearly incorrect, I hereby move to sustain it. ====================================================================== Justice Kolja's Arguments: I believe it is not an appeal judge's job to pretend to be the original judge, make a judgement and then determine that with the original judge's decision (sustaining if they happen to be the same, and overturning otherwise). Instead, I think appeals courts should only check judgements for obvious errors in matters of fact or law, and for consistency. Anything else would restrict the creativity (and responsibility) of judges in an inappropriate way, IMHO. I can find no such errors in Wes' judgement and arguments, so I don't see a reason to overturn. This has nothing to do with the (interesting) debates that followed the appeal, and my personal opinion on them. Obviously, voters may or may not endorse my view on appeals by re-electing me as Justiciar or not - I am looking forward to the result. ======================================================================