Call for Judgement 35 > Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 17:01:27 -0500 > From: jsd@ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey S Davidson) > Message-Id: <9309172201.AA24003@iies.ecn.purdue.edu> > To: Alexx@world.std.com, cogen@ll.mit.edu > Subject: Call for Judgement > ************************************************************************* > Current rules: > > 212. If two or more Mutable Rules conflict with one another, or if > two or more Immutable Rules conflict with one another, then the Rule > with the lowest ordinal 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 > supersede 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. > > 367. Selection of Judges > When Judgment has been called for, a Judge is randomly selected > by the Benevolent Speaker from among the players, excluding > - the player who called for Judgment > - any player who is "involved" by the statement > Involvement of a Voter or the Mighty Speaker implied, if the > statement to be judged makes mention of one of the following: > - an action or inaction of that Voter or the Mighty Speaker > - a Rule mentioning the Mighty Speaker > - a Rule proposed by that voter > The player selected has 3 days in which to accept or refuse the > appointment by posting to the listserver. Any player who does not > respond to selection in 3 days shall be penalized 10 points, and is > deemed to have refused appointment. If a selected player refuses > appointment, then a further random selection is made from the > remaining pool of players. > > > 403. Clarification of Amendments: > Any Proposal which Amends any Rule must: > > (i) explicitly state which Rule it is Amending, and > (ii) fully state the Amended form of that Rule. > > A Proposal which claims to amend a Rule, but does not fully state the > Amended form of that Rule is not a valid Proposal, and must not be > accepted by the Mighty Speaker, nor voted upon. > > 406. Clerk of the Courts, Part I: Definition of Office: > There shall exist an Office "Clerk of the Courts", who shall have > general responsibility over administering Calls for Judgement, as > outlined in the Rules. The active Clerk of the Court may never be > selected as a Judge. > > As a salary for carrying out his duties, he will receive 5 points at > the end of every seven days he is in Office, counting from his > assumption of the Office. > > The initial holder of this Office shall be the Player who submitted > this Proposal. > > 407. Clerk of the Courts, Part II: Invoking Judgement: > If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the > interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may invoke > Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the Clerk of the > Courts. Disagreement, for the purposes of this Rule, may be created > by the insistence of any Player. When Judgement is invoked, the > Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as > described in the Rules. The Clerk of the Courts must then distribute > the Statement to be judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to > all Players. > > 410. Clerk of the Courts, Part V: Selecting a Judge: > When Judgement has been called for, a Judge is randomly selected by > the Clerk of the Courts from among the eligible Players (excluding > the Player who called for Judgement). The Player selected has 3 days > in which to accept or refuse the appointment by posting to the > listserv. Any Player who does not respond to selection in 3 days > shall be penalized 10 points, and is deemed to have refused > appointment. If a selected Player refuses appointment, then a > further random selection is made from the remaining pool. > *************************************************************************** > > Citing the above pertinent rules, I hereby request a Call for Judgement > on whether the Clerk of the Courts may appoint Judges because of a > conflict in the Rules, per Rule 212. > > Justification: Rule 367 states a Judge is randomly selected from the > players by the Benevolent Speaker. > Rule 403 states that an amendment must "explicitly state" > the rule it is amending and the ammended form of same rule. > Rule 406 gives only "general responsibility for > administering." > Rule 407 says that the Clerk of the Courts must select > a Judge. > Rule 410 describes a process for selecting judges by > the Clerk of the Courts. > > While there are rules that further describe some duties of the CotC, they > do not state any authority over Rule 367. I would argue that the > general responsibility includes keeping records of CFJs, including > record of who has and has not responded to act as Judge, and even (408) > distributing the statement to be judged and identity of the judge. > It does not give the Clerk the power to appoint Judges though. The Judge for CFJ 35 shall be: David Wagner { David Wagner defaulted on 1/10/93 and was replaced by Chuck Carrol on the same day. } Judgement: UNDECIDED ----- Justification: This is not a statement to be judged TRUE or FALSE (unless the intent is for me to judge whether the submitter really does request a CFJ or not ;). COTC MAY APPOINT JUDGES and COTC MAY NOT APPOINT JUDGES are not valid Judgements. Rule 407 states that judgement is invoked by submitting a statement--*not* a subordinate clause. The point is now moot, as 367 has been repealed. If it were not, I would recommend submitting the CFJ in a more appropriate form.