From - Wed Aug 23 14:56:12 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 sq62id.q46.30ahi43 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:18:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA20889 for agora-official-list; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:18:49 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 VAA20886 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:18:46 GMT Received: (from mail@localhost) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id HAA00199 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 07:22:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from 132.196.6.64.reflexcom.com(64.6.196.132) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma000196; Wed, 23 Aug 00 07:22:14 +1000 Received: (from wesc@localhost) by fozzie.antitribu.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA24272 for agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:47:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wesc) From: Wes Contreras Message-Id: <200008222147.OAA24272@fozzie.antitribu.com> Subject: OFF: Motion 1234.1 DENIED To: agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (agora-off) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:47:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] 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: sq62id.q46.30ahi43 ============================== CFJ 1234 ============================== Kudos are Property. ======================================================================== Motion 1234.1 I hereby submit a Motion, in conjunction with CFJ 1234, that Judge Kelly return half eir Judicial Salary to the Bank. Yes, I know, Judge Kelly will deny this Motion; but the denial of a Motion may be Appealed. Let's see what happens. Assigned to Taral after Kelly is recused. DENIED by Taral ======================================================================== Called by: Murphy Judge: Kelly Judgement: TRUE Justices: Chuck (S), Taral (J), Wes (C) Appeals Decision: SUSTAINED Judge selection: Eligible: Kelly, lee, Palnatoke, Peekee, Steve, t, Taral, Wes Not eligible: Caller: Murphy Barred: - Had eir turn: Chuck, Elysion Already served: - Defaulted: - Previously Defaulted: Harlequin, Sherlock By request: Blob, Crito, harvel, Michael On Hold: - Zombie: Anthony, Harlequin, Novalis, Schneidster ======================================================================== History: Called by Murphy: 19 Jul 2000 19:32:55 -0700 Assigned to Kelly: 20 Jul 2000 18:58:07 -0700 Judged TRUE by Kelly: 27 Jul 2000 08:03:31 -0500 Judgement Distributed: 27 Jul 2000 20:01:28 -0700 Appealed by Steve: 28 Jul 2000 12:18:09 +1000 Appealed by Palnatoke: 28 Jul 2000 06:39:30 +0200 Appealed by Peekee: 28 Jul 2000 10:20:27 BST Appealed by Blob: 28 Jul 2000 22:14:41 +1000 Appeal assigned: 29 Jul 2000 20:23:59 -0700 SUSTAINED by lee (invalid): 30 Jul 2000 10:35:26 -0500 SUSTAINED by Taral: 30 Jul 2000 11:37:29 -0500 SUSTAINED by Wes: 30 Jul 2000 15:15:00 -0700 SUSTAINED by Chuck: 03 Aug 2000 10:47:20 -0500 Appeal decision distributed: 05 Aug 2000 22:01:43 -0700 Motion 1234.1 by Murphy: 06 Aug 2000 13:22:37 -0700 Motion Distributed: 06 Aug 2000 16:03:26 -0700 Motion assigned to Taral: 20 Aug 2000 20:29:12 -0700 1234.1 DENIED by Taral: 20 Aug 2000 22:21:30 -0500 Denial distributed: As of this message ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: ======================================================================== Judge's Arguments: ======================================================================== Judge's Evidence: ======================================================================== Not-Justice lee's Arguments: I am sorely tempted to Sustain Kelly's judgement without comment. I do hereby Sustain Kelly's judgement of true. 1) I believe Kudo's are property. I have demonstrated this by issuing the Treasuror's miscellaneous property report which included kudos. Other players have also demonstrated their belief in this as well. (game custom already) 2) I "buy" the argument that because the Rules say players poses kudos then kudos are property. (Rules say so) 3)I think property is most useful as a blanket concept. If we do not wish a type of property to move freely, we can make Rules to restrict its transfer. I don't want endless niggling arguments over what things are property, there are so many better aspects of the game to have endless niggling arguments over. (best interests of the game) ======================================================================== Justice Taral's Arguments: I hereby SUSTAIN the Judgement of this CFJ. It is my opinion that, although the Arguments were notably absent, the Judgement itself is correct, and there is no reason to believe that Kelly failed to consider any relevant aspect of the case, especially considering eir more recent comments. ======================================================================== Justice Wes' Arguments: First, we will consider the accuracy of Kelly's Judgement. It is our opinion that the Statement is trivially TRUE. The Rules state that Kudos are possessed, and that anything possessed is Property. We will refrain, with difficulty, from saying "duh" over and over. Second, we will consider the correctness of Kelly's Judgement. The Rules use the word "correct" in a few different contexts, including a description of accuracy, of proper procedure (correct and legal), and even the phrase "correct in its particulars" appears once, implying we're not exactly sure what. This leaves us with the conclusion that the normal english usage of the word continues, enveloping all of these concepts and more. In this particular case, since it is our opinion that the Statement was so obviously TRUE, any Arguments would have been at least a little redundant. Although we strongly prefer that a Judge provide at least a little nudge in the right direction for later readers of the CFJ, we do not feel that their absence in this particular case are sufficiently far from "correct" to warrent overturning the Judgement. We do take this opportunity, though, to point a finger and make a terribly distasteful face at Kelly, a somewhat less forceful reminder that e really should have included Arguments regardless, even if it was just the word "duh" and a couple of Rules quotes for evidence. Then we officially SUSTAIN the Judgement. ======================================================================== Justice Wes' Evidence: Rule 1942/0 (Power=1) Property [in part] Any entity which the Rules permit to be possessed by another entity is a Property. Rule 1062/1 (Power=1) Kudos and Honour Let there be an Entity called the Kudo (plural: Kudos). The amount of Kudos a Player holds is called eir Honour. All Players possess at all times an integral number of Kudos not less than 0. ^^^^^^^ ======================================================================== Justice Chuck's Arguments: I am in agreement with Wes's arguments on the CFJ and so shall not repeat them here--consider them incorporated by reference. ======================================================================== Judge Taral's Arguments for Motion 1234.1: There have been CFJs where even less of a decision was necessary (e.g. my recent oops CFJ), and the Judge in those received eir full Salary. I see no reason why Kelly should be required to repay any part of the Salary e received for CFJ 1234, especially considering that the normal process by which a Judge loses eir Salary (Appeals) resulted in eir retaining that Salary. I therefore deny this Motion. ========================================================================