From - Wed Jul 12 16:47:18 2000 Status: R Return-Path: Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au ([131.170.42.16]) by farley.mail.mindspring.net (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id smnqg5.2srr.37kbi1c for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:46:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA01935 for agora-official-list; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 03:31:55 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 DAA01932 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 03:31:52 GMT From: magika@aracnet.com Received: (from mail@localhost) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id NAA40295 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:44:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail3.aracnet.com(216.99.193.38) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma040291; Wed, 12 Jul 00 13:44:05 +1000 Received: from shell1.aracnet.com (shell1.aracnet.com [216.99.193.21]) by mail3.aracnet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA06770 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 20:42:32 -0700 Received: by shell1.aracnet.com (8.9.3) id UAA08669; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 20:42:30 -0700 Message-Id: <200007120342.UAA08669@shell1.aracnet.com> Subject: OFF: CFJ 1233 Judged FALSE To: agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (agora-off) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 20:42:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: smnqg5.2srr.37kbi1c ============================== CFJ 1233 ============================== Rule 1927 should be interpreted as requiring the Executor of the Bank to announce eir intent to mint Bank Currencies between seven and fourteen days prior to actually minting them. ======================================================================== Motion 1233.1: If the Judge finds the CFJ TRUE, I politely request that e Order the Rulekeepor to Annotate Rule 1927 with the Statement of the CFJ. Denied by Elysion ======================================================================== Called by: Steve Judge: Elysion Judgement: FALSE Judge selection: Eligible: Elysion, Murphy, t, Taral, Wes Not eligible: Caller: Steve Barred: Kelly, lee Had eir turn: Chuck Already served: - Defaulted: - Previously Defaulted: Harlequin, Sherlock By request: Blob, Crito, harvel, Michael On Hold: Palnatoke, Steve Zombie: Anthony, Harlequin, Novalis, Schneidster ======================================================================== History: Called by Steve: 03 Jul 2000 14:31:32 +1000 Assigned to Elysion: 05 Jul 2000 22:28:25 -0700 Judged FALSE by Elysion: 11 Jul 2000 17:13:58 -0400 Motion 1233.1 Denied: 11 Jul 2000 17:13:58 -0400 Judgement Distributed: As of this message ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: For reference, the text of Rule 1927/0: The Executor of a Bank Currency may Mint new units of that Currency, subject to the following restrictions: a) E announces eir intent between seven and fourteen days prior to the time of minting. b) Either e is a member of the Cabinet at the time e mints the currency, or eir action has the support of two Cabinet members. The issue here concerns the interpretation of R1927 in light of the somewhat sloppy formulation ("Executor of a Bank Currency") used in the Rule. I shall argue that sense can still be made of the Rule. Kelly and lee have both pointed out, quite correctly, that there is no such thing as the "Executor of a Bank Currency". The Bank has an Executor, and the various Bank Currencies have Mintors. On this basis, they argue that R1927 is completely without effect, since it attempts to restrict the behaviour of a non-existent entity. I think such an interpretative principle is far too harsh. A much better principle here is that we should make the best sense we can out of a Rule. A Rule should be disregarded as meaningless only as a last resort, when all other attempts to make sense of it have failed. In this case, it is clearly possible to make sense out of the Rule. The Rule would make perfect sense if it began with the phrase "The Mintor of a Bank Currency..." The concepts of 'Mintor' and 'Executor' are closely related, most especially in the context of dealing with Currencies. So we are dealing here with what is clearly a "semantic typo" - an unintended slip from one word or concept to a closely related one. In this case, we should have no more difficulty in interpreting the meaning of the Rule than we should if we encountered a literal typo, say, a reference to "the Mintor of a Bonk Currency". Would Kelly and lee argue that reference to a "Bonk Currency" is meaningless because the Rules do not define any such thing? I doubt it, and I certainly hope not, for we know that the Ruleset is littered with typos. Past Judges have been generous in interpreting Rules in which literal typos occur, and I argue that the Judge in this case should be similarly generous in interpreting R1927. If this interpretation is allowed, the truth of the Statement follows. By R1470, the Bank is the Mintor of every Bank Currency. Hence "the Mintor of a Bank Currency" refers to the Bank. By R1478, the Executor of the Bank is empowered to act on behalf of the Bank, and so the provisions of R1927 apply to em when e attempts to do so. This is what the Statement alleges. ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: ======================================================================== Judge's Arguments: This CFJ rests on the interpretation of "Executor of a Bank Currency." As has been pointed out, taken literally there is no such entity. However, Steve argues that since the intended phrase is "Mintor of a Bank Currency," and the concepts of Executor and Mintor in the context of currency are similar, it should be interpreted as "Mintor of a Bank Currency." Steve presents the example of referring to a "Bonk Currency" to support this. The "Bonk" example is based on the fact that "Bonk Currency" makes no sense in the context of the rules or common English usage. Until recently, "Executor of a Bank Currency" made sense in the context of the rules. Does "Executor of a Bank Currency" make sense in these contexts anymore? Certainly, the concepts of an Executor and a Bank Currency make sense, but do they make sense in combination? Consider the phrase "Executor of a Zombie." If there are no Zombies, this phrase refers to a null set, but it is still meaningful to describe the properties an Executor of a Zombie would have if there were any. Similarly, it is meaningful to describe the properties of an Executor of a Bank Currency, even if there are none. Although this interpretation may not be the one intended by proposal authors, it is this judge's opinion that the literal interpretation should be followed if meaningful. I hereby judge the statement FALSE and deny motion 1233.1 ======================================================================== Judge's Evidence: ========================================================================