From - Wed Apr 19 14:13:22 2000 Return-Path: Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au ([131.170.42.16]) by mx6.mindspring.com (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id sfq0vc.f71.37kbi14 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:55:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA21926 for agora-official-list; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:49:15 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 AAA21923 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:49:12 GMT Received: (from mail@localhost) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id LAA72123 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 11:07:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from msuacad.morehead-st.edu(147.133.1.1) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma072121; Wed, 19 Apr 00 11:07:22 +1000 Received: (from mpslon01@localhost) by msuacad.morehead-st.edu (8.7.1/8.7.1) id UAA12105 for agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:50:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Slone Message-Id: <200004190050.UAA12105@msuacad.morehead-st.edu> Subject: OFF: CFJ 1206 Judged FALSE To: agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (agora-official) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:50:37 EDT X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 212.4] Sender: owner-agora-official@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: sfq0vc.f71.37kbi14 ============================== CFJ 1206 ============================== Peekee did not gain 2 Blots due to Tardiness, because of Oerjan's Probate. ======================================================================== Called by: Peekee Judge: else...if Judgement: FALSE Judge selection: Eligible: Murphy, else...if Not eligible: Caller: Peekee Barred: - Had eir turn: Blob, Chuck, Crito, Elysion, Palnatoke, Steve, Taral, Wes, harvel, lee, t Already served: Anthony, Sherlock Defaulted: Harlequin By request: Michael, harvel On Hold: Novalis, Palnatoke, Peekee Zombie: Anthony, Harlequin, Schneidster ======================================================================== History: Called by Peekee 01 Apr 2000 11:41:37 +0100 Assigned to Sherlock: 02 Apr 2000 17:43:39 -0400 Judged TRUE by Sherlock: 07 Apr 2000 11:07:39 -0700 Judgement published: 07 Apr 2000 17:27:48 -0400 Appealed by Steve: 10 Apr 2000 10:39:56 +1000 Appealed by Wes: 09 Apr 2000 19:10:31 -0700 Appealed by lee: 09 Apr 2000 21:19:34 -0500 Appeal assigned: 10 Apr 2000 08:18:41 -0400 Blob (J) moves to OVERTURN and 13 Apr 2000 14:31:37 +1000 reassign: Murphy (C) moves to OVERTURN 13 Apr 2000 02:07:46 -0700 and reassign: Chuck (S) moves to OVERTURN 14 Apr 2000 08:28:19 -0500 and reassign: Appeal decision published: 14 Apr 2000 12:26:24 -0400 Reassigned to Anthony: 14 Apr 2000 16:00:34 -0400 Reassigned to else...if: 16 Apr 2000 10:33:22 -0400 Judged FALSE by else...if: 18 Apr 2000 10:08:39 -0700 Judgement published: As of this message ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: Firstly I made 2 attempts to complete Oerjan's Probate so if the first failed to clear eir assets the second succeeded, although I then transferred a P-Note to Oerjan. Secondly Rule 1908/1 "Automatic Dispensation", states "the Notary shall become its Executor and shall perform the following actions as soon as possible in the following order." I was not able to do anything as in compliance with Rule 1023/13 "Definition of "As Soon As Possible", "Other Rules may impose different requirements on the timing of Official Duties and on the responsibilities of On Hold Players." And considering the above a different timing constraint is clearly given than that in R 1023 as the actions have to be carried out in order. In addition to the above I claim that Oerjan was no longer in Probate an so I was unable to do anything was way and it all doesn't matter. ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: ======================================================================== Judge Sherlock's Arguments: I find this statement to be TRUE. There's not much for me to say here, except to note that I interpret Peekee's action to have fallen under the jurisdiction of: "Other Rules may impose different requirements on the timing of Official Duties and on the responsibilities of On Hold Players." ======================================================================== Judge Sherlock's Evidence: ======================================================================== Justice Chuck's Arguments: It has already been pointed out, but I will reiterate, that this is a poorly worded CFJ. It seems, from the Caller's arguments, that e wishes to determine whether Peekee as guilty of Tardiness. However, thi statement is clouded by other issues. It directly addresses whether Peekee gained two Blots, and if so, why. As others have noted, it is a possibility that Peekee gained two Blots due to a Notice of Infraction, even if e was not actually guilty of Tardiness. Unfortunately, this statement does not distinguish between that possibility (Peekee gained two Blots, but not due to Tardiness) and the possibility that Peekee did not gain two Blots at all. It seems, by the arguments given, that the Judge has judged the statement that ought to have been called, rather than the statement that was called. However, the Judge is not granted this latitude. Therefore, I join my fellow Justices in moving to overturn and reassign this CFJ. ======================================================================== Justice Chuck's Evidence: ======================================================================== Justice Blob's Arguments: It should not be the job of the Justices to do the work of the Judge who does not care to do eir research. There is more to this case than either the Caller or the Judge have addressed. Neither seems to appreciate the original reason why Wes imposed the Blot penalty on Peekee. Wes claims that contrary to Peekee's claims, Oerjan's Probate was never properly cleared [see Wes' message in attached evidence]. In executing Oerjan's Will, Peekee transferred a total of 94 VTs from Oerjan. But according to the Accountor's Report of 25 Mar 2000, Oerjan had 124 VTs in eir posession at the time. I think this suffices to show that there are arguments and evidence that has not been properly considered by the Judge. I therefore rule that this judgement be overturned. I am tempted to submit a judgement of my own, in order to expedite the process of justice, but I do not feel that it is my role as Justiciar to decide issues that have not been properly considered by a Judge. I therefore rule that the case be re-assigned, and I encourage the new judge to do a more throrough job. ======================================================================== Justice Blob's Evidence: a) Argument submitted by Wes in agora-discussion b) Extract from the Accountor's report of 25 March 2000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- a) From: magika@aracnet.com To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 14:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Appeal of CFJ 1206 assigned to Chuck (S), Blob (J), +Murphy (C) In-Reply-To: <20000411224437.N17748@cse.unsw.edu.au> from "Malcolm Ryan" at Apr +11, 2000 10:44:37 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au > > Ulch, another less than excellent CFJ. Where's the evidence? Who tried > to give Peekee 2 Blots in the first place? What was eir justification? We did on the grounds that e had not discharged Oerjan's Probate in a timely fashion. Regardless of the P-Note that e transfered to Oerjan just to confuse things, e failed to distribute 30 VTs belonging to Oerjan during the normal Probate proceedings. These VTs continues to be in Oerjan's possession far longer than the seven days allowed by the "as soon as possible" clause used in the appropriate Rules. Thus, e was guilty of Tardiness as described in Rule 1023. Peekee subsequently argued that e was somehow impaired in eir ability to perform the necessary transfers, but did not challenge eir requirement to perform them. When hearing this, we think back to when we faced the choice of performing certain actions during a Holiday or committing Tardiness and the legal decision that one's inability to perform an action in no way releases one from the requirement itself, or from the consequences of failing to perform it. Wes magika@aracnet.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- b) Agora Nomic Accountor's VT Report Date of This Report: TBA Date of Last Report: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 Recent Activity: ---------------- Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 23:56:31 -0800 Murphy pays 2 VTs to the Bank to satisfy v3980.7 and v3982.3. Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:17:42 -0800 Murphy transfers 73 VTs to Palnatoke. --- Time of Last Report --- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 23:33:01 GMT Oerjan transfers 32 VTs to Anthony, 31 VTs to Sherlock and 31 VTs to Novalis. .... VT Holdings ----------- 16-Mar-00 25-Mar-00 Max Votes Anthony 5 32 37 9 Blob 411 -120 291 20 Chuck 183 0 183 16 Crito 287 0 287 19 elJefe 14 0 14 6 Elysion 581 -126 455 24 Harlequin 150 0 150 15 harvel 288 -51 237 18 lee 72 -1 71 11 Michael 115 -50 65 11 Murphy 181 0 181 16 Novalis 0 31 31 8 Oerjan 124 -94 30 8 Palnatoke 124 0 124 14 Peekee 99 0 99 12 Schneidster 11 0 11 6 Sherlock 66 31 97 12 Steve 14 120 134 14 t 114 -1 113 13 Wes 358 -125 233 18 Agoran Carnival 0 0 0 OEE 142 0 142 14 Bank 661 354 1015 TOTAL 4000 0 4000 ======================================================================== Justice Murphy's Arguments: In the Appeal of CFJ 1206, I move to overturn Judge Sherlock's verdict and reassign the CFJ to a new Judge. Here are my thoughts on the statement of the CFJ, as well as the Caller's Arguments. > Peekee did not gain 2 Blots due to Tardiness, because of > Oerjan's Probate. Wes claimed that Peekee committed the Infraction of Tardiness in relation to Oerjan's Probate. Peekee *did* gain 2 Blots as a result of this claim; Rule 1435 provides methods by which these Blots may be expunged without Peekee having to pay for them, but those methods have not yet been used. It can be argued, however, that those 2 Blots were not necessarily gained due to Peekee committing Tardiness, but merely due to Wes *claiming* that Peekee committed Tardiness. The new Judge is advised to consider this argument, as well as whether Peekee did or did not commit Tardiness. >Firstly I made 2 attempts to complete Oerjan's Probate so if the first >failed to clear eir assets the second succeeded, although I then transferred >a P-Note to Oerjan. This claim was disputed by Wes when e reported Tardiness; e said that Oerjan had possessed 30 VTs for over a week after first entering Probate, and that the Notary had clearly not dealt with those 30 VTs as required by Rule 1908. >Secondly Rule 1908/1 "Automatic Dispensation", states "the Notary shall >become its Executor and shall perform the following actions as soon as >possible in the following order." > >I was not able to do anything as in compliance with Rule 1023/13 "Definition >of "As Soon As Possible", > >"Other Rules may impose different requirements on the timing of Official >Duties and on the responsibilities of On Hold Players." > >And considering the above a different timing constraint is clearly given >than that in R 1023 as the actions have to be carried out in order. Rule 1908's ordering requirement is an *additional* requirement. There is no sign that it is intended to replace the normal meaning of ASAP in any way; in fact, Rule 1908 explicitly requires the Notary to act ASAP, as Peekee emself quotes. >In addition to the above I claim that Oerjan was no longer in Probate an so >I was unable to do anything was way and it all doesn't matter. This is simply irrelevant. Inability to perform an action does not remove a requirement to perform that action, unless the Rules say so explicitly. ======================================================================== Justice Murphy's Evidence: ======================================================================== Judge Anthony's Arguments: ======================================================================== Judge Anthony's Evidence: ======================================================================== Judge else...if's Arguments: I find this CFJ FALSE. There are two issues in this CFJ, the substantive question of whether Peekee gained 2 Blots, and the literal question of whether Peekee gained two blots due to Tardiness on Oerjan's Probate. Although not necessarily relevant to the case, I feel it appropriate to discuss the substantive question. Although this would only be dicta, it seems inefficient to address *only* the technicalities. The point at stake is whether the impossibility of doing something brings it under rule 1023's clause reading "Other Rules may impose different requirements on the timing of Official Duties and on the responsibilities of On Hold Players." However rule 1908 expressly states that the Executor is required to fulfill eir duties "As Soon As Possible." While the clause in 1023 allows timing requirements other than "As Soon As Possible" to be specified for certain things, it does not allow for the redefinition of the term "As Soon As Possible." There is no question, then, that Peekee did gain 2 Blots, and if there were no issues over the phrasing of the question, the verdict would be FALSE. The next question is the semantic point of what the CFJ's question actually asked. The statement for this CFJ has a poorly placed comma which suggests to me that it actually means "As a consequence of Oerjan's Probate, Peekee did not gain 2 Blots due to Tardiness." This is clearly FALSE (obviously Oerjan's Probate did not prevent Peekee from gaining 2 Blots). I think the intended statement was "Peekee did not gain 2 Blots due to Tardiness on Oerjan's Probate," which forces the question asked by Murphy as to what caused the Blots, Tardiness or Wes' accusation of Tardiness. In the name of completeness, I note that as I see causation, had Peekee not been Tardy, not Blots would have been given, so it seems quite accurate to claim that the Tardiness caused Peekee to gain 2 Blots. Although it may not have been the only, nor the most direct cause, it is is an event without which Peekee would not have gained the Blots; since causation is not defined in the Rules, the standard definition applies. With some relief, I find this CFJ to be FALSE, regardless of which interpretation is used. ======================================================================== Judge else...if's Evidence: ======================================================================== Clerk of the Courts harvel -- Michael Slone I HAVE POKED YOU IN THE EYE... WITH DEMOCRACY! -- Gustavo, in "THE POWER OF DEMOCRACY" (PTP #308)