From - Sun Apr 16 09:37:09 2000 Return-Path: Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au ([131.170.42.16]) by mx8.mindspring.com (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id sfjikf.q1t.37kbi16 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 10:13:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA27423 for agora-official-list; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 14:07:16 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 OAA27420 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 14:07:14 GMT Received: (from mail@localhost) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id AAA63644 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 00:25:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from msuacad.morehead-st.edu(147.133.1.1) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma063642; Mon, 17 Apr 00 00:25:06 +1000 Received: (from mpslon01@localhost) by msuacad.morehead-st.edu (8.7.1/8.7.1) id KAA28091 for agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 10:08:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Slone Message-Id: <200004161408.KAA28091@msuacad.morehead-st.edu> Subject: OFF: CFJ 1207 Judged FALSE To: agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (agora-official) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 10:08:33 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: sfjikf.q1t.37kbi16 ============================== CFJ 1207 ============================== An Official Report ratified according to Rule 1791 (Ratification Without Objection) is ratified by an Officer, not by Rule 1791 itself. Rule 1791 is an Instrument, but Officers are not Instruments, so Rule 1550 (Ratification) does not attempt to prohibit this method of ratification. ======================================================================== Called by: Murphy Judge: Wes Judgement: FALSE Judge selection: Eligible: Blob, Chuck, Peekee, Wes, else...if Not eligible: Caller: Murphy Barred: Steve, Taral Had eir turn: Crito, Elysion, Palnatoke, Sherlock, Steve, Taral, elJefe, harvel, lee, t Already served: - Defaulted: Harlequin By request: Michael, harvel On Hold: Novalis, Palnatoke Zombie: Anthony, Harlequin, Schneidster ======================================================================== History: Called by Murphy 13 Apr 2000 17:47:14 -0700 Assigned to Wes: 13 Apr 2000 23:06:05 -0400 Judged FALSE by Wes: 14 Apr 2000 20:11:25 -0700 Judgement published: As of this message ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: Steve wrote: >Kelly's argument is that the provision in R1550 that "Any Official Document >(as specified in other Rules) may be ratified by the operation of an adopted >Proposal (but no other sort of instrument)" takes precedence over the >provision in R1791 that "Any Officer who holds an Office in Normal Fashion >can Ratify an Official Report Without Objection". > >Allow me to play devil's advocate and suggest a counter-argument. R1550 >forbids only the Ratification of Documents by other sorts of *instrument*. >An instrument is an entity with Power > 0. So, clealy, a Rule cannot Ratify >a Document. But does R1791 describe Ratification by a Rule? I think it would >be more accurate to say that it describes Ratification by an Officer. True, >the Officer acts according to the provisions of the Rule, but the Rule >itself actually Ratifies nothing. It only sets out the procedures for doing >so. The actual Ratification is performed by the Officer. In short, and as >Kelly has so often pointed out, the Rule is not an agent - only the Officer >is. > >Perhaps a CFJ to resolve this is indicated. ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: ======================================================================== Judge Wes's Arguments: We must concede that Rule 1791 attempts to enable an Officer to Ratify a document, rather than actually attempt the Ratification itself. There are two flaws with the rest of the Statement, however. Firstly, Rule 1791 also attempts to enable the Speaker to Ratify a document, who is not an Officer, thus the first clause of the Statement is not entirely correct. An Official Report Ratified according to Rule 1791 is not necessarily ratified by an Officer. More importantly, you will note that we state that Rule 1791 "attempts" to enable an Officer (and the Speaker, for that matter). Or at least our opinion of the intent is to do so. The intent is irrelevant, however. Rule 1791 only enables the Officer (or the Speaker) to Ratify a document which is "legally permissible to Ratify". Rule 1552, on the other hand, quite clearly states that in order for a document to be valid for Ratification, it must meet certain requirements "at the time the Proposal which would Ratify it is Proposed". Since such a Proposal does not exist, such a time does not exist. Thus the requirements of Rule 1552 cannot be met. Thus the document itself is not legally permissible to Ratify. We suppose that if an Officer did submit such a Proposal, and at this time the document met the various requirements of Rule 1552, then the Officer could proceed to follow the procedure outlined in Rule 1791 to Ratify the document, even though the Proposal may never be distributed. However, in spite of this theoretical possibility, the Statement is still FALSE due to the nuance we discuss in the beginning of our arguments. ======================================================================== Judge Wes's Evidence: Rule 1550/2 (Power=1) Ratification Any Official Document (as specified in other Rules) may be ratified by the operation of an adopted Proposal (but no other sort of instrument). The instrument must specify an Official Document (as specified in other Rules) which is subject to ratification. Rule 1791/0 (Power=1) Ratification Without Objection Any Officer who holds an Office in Normal Fashion can Ratify an Official Report Without Objection, provided the following conditions hold; i) The Report to be Ratified is one that is legally permissible to Ratify. ii) The Report to be Ratified was produced by the Player holding the Office. iii) The Report to be Ratified is one that is required to be produced and maintained by the Officer. A Speaker who is not Tainted is permitted to Ratify any Official Report Without Objection provided that the Report is one legally permissible to Ratify. A COE on any Report undergoing this process shall be deemed by the Rules to constitute an Objection. Rule 1552/2 (Power=1) Requirements for Ratification (partial) In order for an Official Document to be valid for the purpose of a Ratification, it must satisfy all the following criteria at the time the Proposal which would Ratify it is Proposed: ======================================================================== Clerk of the Courts harvel -- Michael Slone I think the issue is that Wes purports to be plural. -- Kelly, in agora-discussion