From - Wed Sep 20 20:33:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au ([131.170.42.16]) by runyon.mail.mindspring.net (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id ssgli1.ist.37kbi7f for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 02:16:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA20035 for agora-official-list; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 06:18:11 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 GAA20032 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 06:18:06 GMT Received: (from mail@localhost) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id RAA51924 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:16:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from dfw.nationwide.net(198.175.15.10) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma051922; Wed, 20 Sep 00 17:16:25 +1100 Received: (from ccarroll@localhost) by dfw.nationwide.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07781 for agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 01:15:26 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <200009200615.BAA07781@dfw.nationwide.net> Subject: OFF: CFJ 1240 Judged TRUE To: agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (Agora Official) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 01:15:25 -0500 (CDT) From: "Charles E. Carroll" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL0] 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: ssgli1.ist.37kbi7f ============================== CFJ 1240 ============================== Kelly is not the Judge of CFJ 1234. ======================================================================== Called by: Kelly Judge: t Judgement: FALSE Justices: Blob (S), Taral (J), Wes (C) Appeals Decision: OVERTURN and Reassign Judge: Andre Judgement: TRUE Judge selection: Eligible: t, Taral, Wes Not eligible: Caller: Kelly Barred: - Had eir turn: Blob, Chuck, Elysion, Kelly, lee, Murphy, Oerjan, Peekee, Steve Already served: - Defaulted: - Previously Defaulted: Harlequin, Sherlock By request: Crito, harvel, Michael On Hold: Palnatoke Zombie: Anthony, Harlequin, Novalis, Schneidster ======================================================================== History: Called by Kelly: 08 Aug 2000 03:31:33 -0500 Assigned to t: 08 Aug 2000 12:58:16 -0700 Judged FALSE by t: 14 Aug 2000 14:06:53 +0300 Judgement Distributed: 14 Aug 2000 18:31:54 -0700 Appealed by Steve: 15 Aug 2000 12:27:20 +1000 Appealed by Kelly: 15 Aug 2000 00:14:50 -0500 Appealed by Taral: 15 Aug 2000 12:36:20 -0500 Appealed by Palnatoke: 15 Aug 2000 Appealed by Wes: 15 Aug 2000 13:42:10 -0700 Appeal Distributed: 15 Aug 2000 14:17:48 -0700 OVERTURNED by Taral: 20 Aug 2000 22:37:46 -0500 OVERTURNED by Wes: 20 Aug 2000 20:46:31 -0700 Chuck Recused: 30 Aug 2000 21:56:36 -0700 Blob assigned as Justice: 30 Aug 2000 21:57:22 -0700 OVERTURNED by Blob: 31 Aug 2000 15:40:08 +1100 Appeal decision distributed: 31 Aug 2000 Judged TRUE by Andre: 07 Sep 2000 Appealed by Steve: 10 Sep 2000 ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: ======================================================================== Judge t's Arguments: ======================================================================== Judge t's Evidence: ======================================================================== Justice Taral's Arguments: lthough it is my belief that the Judgement here is correct, I strongly believe in the application of due consideration to a CFJ. There is nothing to indicate that this decision is in any way obvious or generally agreed upon, as was the case in CFJ 1234. There is also no auxiliary indication of such consideration, such as messages in Discussion Fora or a substantial amount of time taken for the Judgement. Therefore, in order to preserve a certain level of fairness in the consideration applied to each and every CFJ, I move to OVERTURN and REASSIGN, in the hopes that another Judge will give this CFJ the consideration it deserves. ======================================================================== Justice Wes' Arguments: It is our belief that Kelly is indeed the Judge of CFJ 1234, as we have stated before. However, we are not so sure of that belief that we are willing to blind ourself to other possibilities. Considering that t failed to provide any Arguments, we have no idea what reasoning e used to arrive at eir Judgement. Since this Judgement was far from obvious, and indeed involves a great deal of uncertainty, we have no great confidence that the Judgement is correct. We therefore OVERTURN the decision and move to reassign to a new Judge. ======================================================================== Justice Blob's Arguments: I agree with my fellow Justices that t's judgement without argument does not to justice to this case. I therefore move that it be OVERTURNED and REASSIGNED. ======================================================================== Judge Andre's Arguments: Although it is the interpretation of the Rules rather than the facts of the case that are under conflict here, I will start with giving a short overview of the latter. Because there seems to be no disagreement over them, I have decided not to take the troubles necessary to add them as a reference. The important points here that are not disputed by anyone seem to be: - Kelly was assigned to judge CFJ 1234 - Kelly issued a judgement on CFJ 1234 - Kelly's judgement on CFJ 1234 was appealed but sustained - At the time CFJ 1240 was called, Kelly had not been recused as a Judge on the CFJ The important matter in this case is the interpretation of the third paragraph of Rule 408, which reads: Seven days after the end of the Deliberation Period, the Judge becomes ineligible to Judge that CFJ and commits the Infraction of Judging Late as described elsewhere in this Rule. Kelly (I have added eir argument as evidence) argues that this means that any Judge becomes ineligible to Judge a CFJ seven days after the end of the Deliberation Period, Steve (idem) argues that the context makes it clear that this only holds for Judges that have not delivered Judgement. I disagree with Steve's arguments. The context can hardly be read to have 'the Judge' here mean a Judge who has not delivered Judgement. If we go with the context as he wants us to do, the result would not be that we are talking about a Judge who has not delivered a Judgement (or Dismissal), but that the word 'Judge' as described in the previous line. Which would be a Judge who is Recused by the CotC for the reasons and in the manner described in the second paragraph. This leaves us with two interpretations of this paragraph - Kelly's that it holds for any Judge, and mine that it holds for Judges who already have been Recused for not judging in time. As usual, I have tried to find other texts in the Rules with a similar structure, and see how they are used. The structure in this case is: - First talk about something general - Then talk about a particular circumstance of the same thing - Then mention the general thing in the or a next line without saying explicitly whether it applies to the general or the particular The problem is, that such structures are not easily found except by reading the whole Rule. Probably there are more cases in the Ruleset that are analogous, but I only found one. In Rule 1030, the third paragraph would be read under my interpretation as only applying to cases as described in the second paragraph. In Kelly's interpretation it would apply to all conflicts between Rules with equal Power. In this case, Kelly's interpretation certainly looks more logical, and because I have not found any other or closer analogies in the Ruleset (although they might well exist, I checked only one-fifth of it or so), I go with Kelly's interpretation, and issue a Judgement of TRUE. So as to preempt any argument saying we should take another interpretation because of 'the interest of the game': It may well be argued that my interpretation is even less in the interest of the game, since under this interpretation, if the CotC does not assign a new Judge within a week after the end of the Deliberation Period, no new Judge can be assigned, so we might be left with unjudged CFJs. Steve's interpretation would indeed be more in the interest of the game, but that one is not in line with the actual rules. Even though the rules are 'unclear', the unclarity is just between my interpretation and Kelly's, it is not unclear about making Steve's interpretation wrong. ======================================================================== Judge Andre's Evidence: Evidence and other related matters. All messages used as Evidence and related matter are taken from the archives at eScribe. 1. Assignment of CFJ 1234 to Kelly 2. Announcement of Kelly's Judgement on CFJ 1234 3. Appeal Decision on CFJ 1234 4. Original Judgement of CFJ 1240 (excerpt, containing information on the time and date CFJ 1240 was called) 5. Excerpt of a message containing Kelly's arguments in this matter. 6. Message containing Steve's arguments in this matter 7. Rule 408 8. Rule 1030 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Assignment of CFJ 1234 to Kelly OFF: CFJ 1234 assigned to Kelly From: magika (view other messages by this author) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 19:06:17 ============================== CFJ 1234 ============================== Kudos are Property. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Called by: Murphy Judge: Kelly Judgement: 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: As of this message ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Caller's Arguments: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Caller's Evidence: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge's Arguments: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge's Evidence: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Announcement of Kelly's Judgement OFF: CFJ 1234 Judged TRUE by kelly From: magika (view other messages by this author) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 20:10:28 ============================== CFJ 1234 ============================== Kudos are Property. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Called by: Murphy Judge: Kelly Judgement: TRUE 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: As of this message ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Caller's Arguments: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Caller's Evidence: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge's Arguments: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge's Evidence: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Appeals Judgement OFF: CFJ 1234 SUSTAINED From: magika (view other messages by this author) Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 22:11:06 ============================== CFJ 1234 ============================== Kudos are Property. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Original Judgement of CFJ 1240 (excerpt) Called by Kelly: 08 Aug 2000 03:31:33 -0500 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Excerpt of Kelly's message to nomic-business, date 7 August 2000, 02:29:27, containing eir arguments: Reason: Rule 408 states that seven days after the end of the deliberation period of a CFJ, the Judge assigned to that CFJ becomes ineligible to Judge that CFJ. It having been more than seven days since the end of the deliberation period of CFJ 1234, I am now ineligible to be its Judge, and according to Rule 1868, I am therefore no longer its Judge. A new Judge must therefore be selected. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Steve's message to nomic-discussion, date 8 August, 17:02:40, containing eir arguments regarding this matter. kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us wrote: > >>You are, however, required to Grant or Deny the Motion in question. > >Not if I'm not the Judge, which I allege that I am not. Since you >have denied this allegation, I hereby call a CFJ: > > "Kelly is not the Judge of CFJ 1234." If I've been following, your argument for this (curiously, given your recent remarks on the subject, not included along with the CFJ) is based on the following provision in R408: Seven days after the end of the Deliberation Period, the Judge becomes ineligible to Judge that CFJ and commits the Infraction of Judging Late as described elsewhere in this Rule. Taken out of context, this provision does seem to imply that you became ineligible to Judge CFJ 1234 a week after the end of the Deliberation Period. Taken out of context, the provision also has the bizarre consequence that every Judge eventually commits the Infraction of Judging Late, whether or nor e delivers a Judgement. Taken *in* context, however, matters look rather different. Consider the whole Rule: Rule 408/13 (Power=1) Requirement to Judge or Dismiss The Deliberation Period for any particular CFJ begins when the Clerk of the Courts announces the identity of the Judge and ends seven days later. At any point after the end of the Deliberation Period for a particular CFJ, if the Judge has not yet returned Judgement or Dismissed that CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts may Recuse that Judge from the case and assign a new one as usual. If this occurs, then the Recused Judge shall commit the Class 3 Infraction of Judging Late, detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts, and shall furthermore be ineligible to Judge any future CFJ's until such time as e requests to be made eligible again by publicly posting such a request. Seven days after the end of the Deliberation Period, the Judge becomes ineligible to Judge that CFJ and commits the Infraction of Judging Late as described elsewhere in this Rule. If the Judge returned a Judgement or Dismisses that CFJ after the end of the Deliberation Period but before being Recused as Judge, then e shall commit the Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, a Class 0.2 Infraction to be detected and Reported by the Clerk of the Courts. I think the context makes it clear that the case under discussion in the third paragraph is that where the Judge has not delivered Judgement in the two weeks following eir assignment to the CFJ. It follows on from the second paragraph, which discusses the case where the Judge has not delivered Judgement within one week of assignment, and precedes the fourth paragraph, which discusses the case where the Judge delivers Judgement in the second week. -- Steve Gardner | Appearances to the contrary, Dept. of Philosophy, Monash Uni. | things are just what they seem. gardner@silas.cc.monash.edu.au | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Rule 408/13 Rule 408/13 (Power=1) Requirement to Judge or Dismiss The Deliberation Period for any particular CFJ begins when the Clerk of the Courts announces the identity of the Judge and ends seven days later. At any point after the end of the Deliberation Period for a particular CFJ, if the Judge has not yet returned Judgement or Dismissed that CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts may Recuse that Judge from the case and assign a new one as usual. If this occurs, then the Recused Judge shall commit the Class 3 Infraction of Judging Late, detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts, and shall furthermore be ineligible to Judge any future CFJ's until such time as e requests to be made eligible again by publicly posting such a request. Seven days after the end of the Deliberation Period, the Judge becomes ineligible to Judge that CFJ and commits the Infraction of Judging Late as described elsewhere in this Rule. If the Judge returned a Judgement or Dismisses that CFJ after the end of the Deliberation Period but before being Recused as Judge, then e shall commit the Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, a Class 0.2 Infraction to be detected and Reported by the Clerk of the Courts. History: Initial Mutable Rule 215, Jun. 30 1993 Amended by Proposal 408 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993 Amended(1) by Proposal 1383, Jan. 17 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1500, Mar. 24 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996 Amended(4) by Proposal 2587, May 1 1996 Amended(5) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic (unattributed) Infected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Aug. 14 1997, susbstantial (unattributed) Amended(7) by Rule 408, Aug. 28 1997, substantial Amended(8) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997, substantial Amended(9) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997 Amended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999 Amended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999 Amended(12) by Proposl 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000 Amended(13) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Rule 1030/4 Rule 1030/4 (Power=3) Precedence between Rules with Equal Power If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence. If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for determining precedence relations, then the determinations of the precedence determining Rule shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence. If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs. CFJ 1104 (Judged TRUE, Sep. 9 1998): "The presence in a Rule of deference clause, claiming that the Rule defers to another Rule, does not prevent a conflict with the other Rule arising, but shows only how the Rule says that conflict is to be resolved when it does arise." [CFJs 1114 and 1115 (both Judged Feb. 5 1999): This Rule is to be applied to resolve Rule conflicts on a case-by-case basis; just because a Rule is inapplicable in one situation due to conflict with a Rule of higher precedence does not mean that the Rule is nullified in all cases.] History: Initial Mutable Rule 202, Jun. 30 1993 Amended by Proposal 1030, Sep. 15 1994 Amended by Rule 750, Sep. 15 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 1527, Mar. 24 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 2520, Mar. 10 1996 Mutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2763 (Steve), Nov. 30 1996 Amended(4) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic (unattributed) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ======================================================================== Chuck