From - Thu May 25 15:13:00 2000 Return-Path: Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au ([131.170.42.16]) by osgood.mail.mindspring.net (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id siq6gm.kn7.30ahi43 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 08:18:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA04006 for agora-official-list; Thu, 25 May 2000 12:04:39 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 MAA04003 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 12:04:37 GMT Received: (from mail@localhost) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id WAA80288 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 22:12:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from msuacad.morehead-st.edu(147.133.1.1) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma080286; Thu, 25 May 00 22:12:06 +1000 Received: (from mpslon01@localhost) by msuacad.morehead-st.edu (8.7.1/8.7.1) id IAA18130 for agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au; Thu, 25 May 2000 08:09:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Slone Message-Id: <200005251209.IAA18130@msuacad.morehead-st.edu> Subject: OFF: CFJ 1218 Judged FALSE To: agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (agora-official) Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 8:09:54 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: siq6gm.kn7.30ahi43 ============================== CFJ 1218 ============================== The insertion of a blank line in a Rule is a Rule change[.] ======================================================================== Called by: Palnatoke Judge: t Judgement: FALSE Judge selection: Eligible: Crito, Peekee, Sherlock, t Not eligible: Caller: Palnatoke Barred: - Had eir turn: Chuck, Elysion, Kelly, Murphy, Palnatoke, Steve, Taral, Wes, harvel, lee Already served: - Defaulted: Harlequin By request: Blob, Michael On Hold: - Zombie: Anthony, Harlequin, Novalis, Schneidster ======================================================================== History: Called by Palnatoke 18 May 2000 20:08:15 +0200 Assigned to t: 18 May 2000 19:44:43 -0400 Judged FALSE by t: 25 May 2000 01:13:47 +0300 Judgement published: As of this message ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: ======================================================================== Judge t's Arguments: I find this statement to be FALSE, for the reasons I give below. To determine the truth value of this statement we need to consider what kinds of changes to a Proposal are Rule Changes and what kind of a standing whitespace has within Rules' texts. Rule 105 defines four types of Rule Changes, two of which need be considered here: * The amendment of the text of an existing Rule; or * Any change to a substantive property of a Rule other than its text. The question about the essence of whitespace is answered partly in Rule 1339, which states that variations in whitespace or capitalization in quotation of text in an existing Rule does not create irregularities or ambiguities. This Rule appears, then, to confirm the status of whitespace as a part of a Rule's text. The Rule, however, only applies in the case of a quotation of a Rule's text to be removed or replaced, and in that case whitespace is explicitly defined to be inconsequential. That would support a position that whitespace is not a substantive property of a Rule, but this is possible only if it is not an integral part of the Rule's text. The foundation on which the dreams of power of whitespace rests crumbles as we read Rule 107, which defines valid media for Rule Changes. According to the Rule, which takes precedence over 1339, print and electronic media have an equal standing. It is obvious that print and electronic media have different types of whitespace. In a handwritten page, especially when the page has been written by this judge, it is not always clear whether a certain area with no text is a blank line. Similarly, the idea of multiple blank lines may not be relevant to such a document. The question is, then, whether the alterations of whitespace in different representations of a Rule are in any way relevant. This may be an important question if a handwritten Proposal is ever submitted. Even though Rule 1339 only applies in certain circumstances, it is only time this matter is discussed in the Rules. Since accurate depiction of whitespace is not required in one case where it might be, and the conversion of documents from print to electronic versions and vice versa poses difficulties if small variations in the whitespace of the text can be important, we find that it is in the best interests of the game, as well as supported by a longtime game custom, that Rule 1339 is taken as a guideline in all pertinent game actions. Another question is whether reformatting a Proposal is a Rule Change. This statement may very well be true, but it is a completely different thing than the statement of this cfj. Blank lines may be used in formatting electronic plain text version of a Rule. Another version of the Rule may use some other method to distinguish paragraphs from each other, such as

tags in html. On a final note, it is the Judge's humble opinion that Agora would benefit greatly if we would have some kinds of standards for Rule text formatting. Maybe an Agoran Rules DTD would be in order. Such a thing would remove many possibilities of ambiguities within Proposals. ======================================================================== Judge t's Evidence: Rule 1339/6 (Power=3) Precision in Rule Changes Exact precision is required in the specification of Rule Changes; any ambiguity or irregularity in the specification of a Rule Change causes it to be void and without effect. Variations in whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of text in an existing Rule to be removed or replaced does not create an irregularity or ambiguity, for the purpose of this Rule. Any other variation, however, does. Rule 107/1 (Power=3) Rule Changes Must Be Written Down Any proposed Rule Change must be written down (or otherwise communicated in valid media) before it is voted on. If adopted, it must guide play in the form in which it was voted on. For the purposes of this rule, print and electronic media, including mailing lists, are valid media. ======================================================================== Clerk of the Courts harvel -- Michael Slone