From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Mon Mar 20 21:34:07 1995 Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id VAA04882; Mon, 20 Mar 1995 21:33:52 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id TAA00639 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 1995 19:37:48 -0800 Received: from mizar.astro.indiana.edu (mizar.astro.indiana.edu [129.79.160.43]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA00578 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 1995 19:37:29 -0800 Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0rqul3-0001U1C; Mon, 20 Mar 95 22:37 EST Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga) id <2ert@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Mon, 20 Mar 95 22:34:47 EST5 Date: Mon, 20 Mar 95 22:34:47 EST5 Message-Id: <9503210334.2ert@poverty.bloomington.in.us> From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin) To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: Final Judgement of CFJ 752 Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== FINAL JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 752 (Rule 911 should be interpreted such that CFJ 750...) ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 15:40 UTC Final Judgement: FALSE Judgement of the Clerk of the Courts: UNDECIDED (*) Judgement of the Speaker: FALSE Judgement of the Justiciar: FALSE Clerk of the Courts: Kelly Delegate: TAL Speaker: elJefe Justiciar: Steve Judgement: FALSE Judge: Swann Eligible to Judge: Andre, Blob, Coren, Dave Bowen, Elde, Einstein, elJefe, Jeffrey, JonRock, KoJen, Michael, Oerjan, Pascal, Steve, Swann, TAL, Vanyel, Vlad Caller: Chuck Barred: Kelly Scorekeepor: Swann receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement Steve receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement elJefe receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement Kelly receives 3 Points for timely Judgement (*) Note: Judgement of UNDECIDED is permissible because this CFJ was made before Rule 591 was amended by Proposal 1487. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called Mon, 13 Mar 95 10:43:01 CST by Chuck Assigned Mon, 13 Mar 1995 19:40 UTC to Swann Judged FALSE Tue, 14 Mar 1995 08:00:42 -0500 by Swann --> Swann receives 5 Points Appealed Tue, 14 Mar 1995 11:42:11 -0800 (PST) by Coren Appealed Tue, 14 Mar 1995 14:35:41 -0600 by Chuck Appealed Thu, 16 Mar 95 12:36:58 MET by Andre Assigned Thu, 16 Mar 1995 14:25 UTC to Steve as Justiciar Assigned Thu, 16 Mar 1995 14:25 UTC to elJefe as Speaker Assigned Thu, 16 Mar 1995 15:40 UTC to TAL as pro-CotC Judged FALSE Fri, 17 Mar 1995 18:54:45 +1100 (EST) by Steve as Justiciar --> Steve receives 5 Points Judged FALSE Fri, 17 Mar 95 10:13:38 EST by elJefe as Speaker --> elJefe receives 5 Points Judged UNDECIDED Mon, 20 Mar 95 21:26:54 WET by TAL as pro-CotC --> Kelly receives 3 Points ====================================================================== Statement: "Rule 911 should be interpreted such that CFJ 750 has been successfully appealed." Relevant Rules: 911, 478, 591, 408 Injunction: I do not request an Injunction with this CFJ. However, Rule 789 still requires me to provide a list of Relevant Rules; and if the Judge Judges TRUE, e is permitted to issue an Injunction in accordance with Rule 789. I bar Kelly from Judging this statement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: Rule 911 states that a Judgement is appealed upon the insistence of three Players to the Public Forum. Coren and TAL have posted their calls for appeal directly to nomic-business, which constitutes the Public Forum. (I can find no explicit evidence that Distributor Coren has defined nomic-business as the Public Forum; however, the info message with nomic-business states that all Players are required to be subscribed to it, which I take as definition as the Public Forum. The same applies to nomic-offical.) It is the third Player's "insistence"--mine--which is primarily under dispute. I included it in my Reasons and Arguments on my Judgement of CFJ 750 which was not posted directly by me to the Public Forum; it was sent to COTC Kelly. Kelly then posted it to (and was required to post it to) the Public Forum. (She is required to send it to all Players, by Rules 408 and 591; by Rule 478, this constitutes the Public Forum.) Does this indirect posting to the Public Forum, by me through Kelly, constitute "insistence to the Public Forum?" I believe it does. There is nothing in the Rules to suggest the path something takes to the defined lists affects whether or not it is posted to the Public Forum. Some mail messages may go through several nodes before reaching teleport.com, but no one would suggest that they are not posted to the Public Forum because they did not go to teleport.com first. Similarly, my insistence was sent to the Public Forum, only through the COTC. I also believe Game Custom supports me on this. There was a time when the Distributor list was handled manually. Yet no one suggested that something was not sent to the Public Forum because it was sent to the Distributor first. (And note the Distributor Rule only provides an exception when something is to be sent to all Players, not when something is to be sent to the Public Forum.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- References: 1. Rule 911 2. Rule 478 3. Rule 591 4. Rule 408 5. Rule 796 6. COTC Kelly's post of the Judgement of CFJ 750, including my Reasons and Arguments and my call for Appeal 7. Coren's call for Appeal 8. TAL's call for Appeal 9. info message for nomic-official 10. info message for nomic-business ======1. Rule 911 Rule 911/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Appealing Judgement A Judgement may be Appealed upon the insistence of any three Players to the Public Forum. If a Judgement is successfully Appealed, the Justices shall each Judge the Statement as if they were Judges. They may confer with each other on the case before delivering Judgement if they desire. If a Justice should fail to return Judgement in the allotted time, e shall be fined three Points for each day by which e missed the deadline. This fine shall be levied by the Scorekeepor. If a majority of the Justices' Judgements agree, the Statement shall be considered to have been Judged accordingly. Otherwise, it shall be considered to have been ruled UNDECIDED. The Justices' reasoning and arguments shall be recorded with the original CFJ. Once a Judgement has been made, the Justices may make Injunctions just as may Judges, provided a majority of them agree. The decision of the Justices is final; no further Appeal of that Statement may be made. If the decision of the original Judge of the Statement is changed by the Justices, the Judge shall forfeit the compensation e received for judging. (*Was: 690*) History: .. Amended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994 =====2. Rule 478 Rule 478/1 (Mutable, MI=1) The Public Forum The Public Forum is any medium defined by the Distributor as such. If a Rule requires that a message is send to the Public Forum, then a message send to all Active Players fulfills this requirement as well" History: .. Amended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995 =====3. Rule 591 Rule 591/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Legal Judgements A legal Judgement is either TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDED. The Judgement must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations of deciding Rules, past Judgements, and game custom. A Judgement delivered without reasons and/or arguments is completely invalid. Such reasons and arguments form no part of the Judgement itself. However, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the reasons and arguments along with the Judgement. Any evidence which is used to justify the Judgement, other than appeals to Game Custom or to common sense, must be presented by the Judge. If the Judge introduces evidence beyond that submitted in the Call for Judgement, e must include this evidence in eir Judgement. All such added evidence must be distributed as part of the reasons and arguments by the Clerk of the Courts. History: .. Amended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994 =====4. Rule 408 Rule 408/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Accepting Judge-ship After the Clerk of the Courts has distributed the Statement to be judged and the identity of the Judge, the Judge has one week in which to deliver a legal Judgement. If the Judge fails to deliver a Judgement within this time, e is penalized 10 points and the CotC randomly selects another Judge from among eligible Players. A Judgement is delivered by submitting that Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts, who must then distribute that Judgement to all Players as soon as possible. History: .. Amended(1) by Proposal 1383, Jan. 17 1995 =====5. Rule 796 Rule 796/0 (Mutable, MI=1) The Distributor There shall be an Office known as the Distributor. Whenever the Rules state that anything must be sent to all Players, they may instead be sent to the Distributor with some indication that they should be forwarded to all Players. The Distributor shall then send this message to all Players as soon as possible and in the order recieved. The first Distributor shall be Wes. This Rule shall take precedence over all Rules which require a Player to send something to all Players. (*Was: 510*) =====6. COTC Kelly's post of the Judgement of CFJ 750 Received: from desiree.teleport.com by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id UAA07812; 8.6.9W/42; Sat, 11 Mar 1995 20:31:49 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id SAA19575 for nomic-official-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 1995 18:31:24 -0800 Received: from mizar.astro.indiana.edu (mizar.astro.indiana.edu [129.79.160.43]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA19526 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 1995 18:31:11 -0800 Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0rndQz-0001RVC; Sat, 11 Mar 95 21:31 EST Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga) id <2b0i@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Sat, 11 Mar 95 21:30:20 EST5 Date: Sat, 11 Mar 95 21:30:20 EST5 Message-Id: <9503120230.2b0i@poverty.bloomington.in.us> From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin) To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: Judgement of CFJ 750 (Speaker ElJefe violated Rule 452...) Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 750 (Speaker ElJefe violated Rule 452 by...) ====================================================================== Date: 12 Mar 1995 02:30 UTC Judgement: TRUE Judge: Chuck Eligible to Judge: Andre, Blob, Dave Bowen, Coren, Chuck, Elde, Einstein, Jeffrey, JonRock, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Pascal, Steve, Swann, TAL, Vanyel, Vlad Caller: Oerjan Barred: elJefe Scorekeepor: Chuck receives 3 Points for timely Judgement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called Tue, 7 Mar 1995 19:19:02 +0100 (MET) by Oerjan Assigned Tue, 7 Mar 1995 19:10 UTC to Chuck Judged TRUE Sat, 11 Mar 95 19:40:52 CST by Chuck --> Chuck receives 3 Points ====================================================================== Statement: "Speaker ElJefe violated Rule 452 by sending individual Vote Reminders to the Voters who had not yet voted on Proposals then up for Vote." I Bar ElJefe from judging this. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: Clearly this act utilised the Speaker's knowledge of the standing of the Votes. It's intent was to encourage players to vote, thereby influencing the amount of Votes cast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- References: Rule 452/1 (Mutable, MI=1) No Electioneering by the Speaker The Speaker may not use eis knowledge of the current status of a vote on a Proposal in an attempt to influence the result of the Vote on that Proposal. ====================================================================== Judgment: TRUE I Judge this statement to be TRUE. If Rule 452 did not include the words "in an attempt," I would judge this statement TRUE without reservation, since it is clear that 1) elJefe sent separate voting reminders out to Players who had not yet voted, and 2) it is possible that these may have influenced the vote. But because Rule 452 *does* include the words "in an attempt," another question is raised, namely, was elJefe *attempting* to influence the vote? Or would any such influence, if it occurred, have been entirely unintentional? It is impossible for me to know with certainty elJefe's intent; but it seems very unlikely that such a reminder could have been sent for any other purpose than encouraging Players who had not yet voted to vote. Thus, I still Judge TRUE, but with somewhat more reluctance than I would have otherwise. The Rules are not clear on how certain one must be of a TRUE or FALSE Judgement to make it. While I am not 100ertain that this statement is TRUE, I am fairly certain. There is certainly a case to be made for UNDECIDED (or, if 1487 passes, UNKNOWN) on the basis that no one but elJefe can know elJefe's intent with certainty, and thus it cannot be known if elJefe attempted to influence the Vote. I encourage elJefe to appeal this decision. In fact, I hereby call for appeal on the Judgement of CFJ 750. [[Note of the CotC: Chuck's attempt to Call for Appeal is not binding, as it was not posted to the Public Forum, at least not by himself.]] ====================================================================== -- kelly martin Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea--massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it. --Gene Spafford, 1992 =====7. Coren's call for Appeal Received: from desiree.teleport.com by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id LAA16800; 8.6.9W/42; Sun, 12 Mar 1995 11:39:58 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id JAA06711 for nomic-business-outgoing; Sun, 12 Mar 1995 09:39:47 -0800 Received: from linda.teleport.com (coren@linda.teleport.com [192.108.254.12]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA06706 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 1995 09:39:44 -0800 Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 09:39:41 -0800 (PST) From: Gary Heavysege To: nomic-business@teleport.com, Kelly Martin Subject: BUS: Honourable COTC: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-nomic-business@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com This is getting interesting, and needs to be resolved... Please accept my Appeal of CFJ 750. I don't have real strong feelings one way or the other, but I'd like to see both whether elJefe actually is at fault, *and* whether Chuck, by sending his Appeal as part of a message he knew with full certainty would be posted to the Public Forum, actually did so. Coren ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Gary Heavysege -- Internet: coren@teleport.com, coren@suuper.suu.edu, gheavysege@delphi.com finger -l for PGP Public Key: 78 38 2B F8 EC CF 7E 55 A7 75 C3 9D 11 1D 00 AC ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ =====8. TAL's call for Appeal Received: from desiree.teleport.com by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id HAA56864; 8.6.9W/42; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 07:31:48 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id FAA26354 for nomic-business-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 05:31:36 -0800 Received: from CEARN.cern.ch (cearn.cern.ch [128.141.2.9]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id FAA26343 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 05:31:31 -0800 Message-Id: <199503131331.FAA26343@desiree.teleport.com> Received: from CERNVM.CERN.CH by CEARN.cern.ch (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4043; Mon, 13 Mar 95 14:29:56 SET Received: from CERNVM.cern.ch (NJE origin KUNNE@CERNVM) by CERNVM.CERN.CH (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8834; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 14:28:09 +0100 Date: Mon, 13 Mar 95 14:26:43 WET From: KUNNE@CERNVM.cern.ch Subject: BUS: Appeal of CFJ 750 To: nomic-business@teleport.com Sender: owner-nomic-business@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com In order to allow Chuck to CFJ on the legality of his own Appeal, I herewith Appeal CFJ 750. Let it be known that this doesn't mean I disagree with the Judgment. TAL =====9. info message for nomic-official >>>> info nomic-official [Last updated on: Fri Dec 2 1:21:32 1994] Welcome to Agora Nomic and the nomic-official mailing list !!! -------------------------------------------------------------- SUBSCRIPTION TO THIS LIST IS REQUIRED OF ALL PLAYERS! This list is for Agora Nomic official messages and reports, as required of the duly appointed Officers by the Agora Nomic Rules, **ONLY**. Please - all messages to this list must be clearly marked as being from a specific Officer. Please post questions or corrections regarding messages on this list, or any other official business related messages to "nomic-business@teleport.com" Please post ALL OTHER messages to "nomic-discussion@teleport.com". PLEASE - DO NOT ABUSE THIS LIST BY POSTING INELIGIBLE MESSAGES!!! This system is designed to allow people with limited time or resources to play Agora Nomic while receiving the absolute minimum number of messages necessary to know what is going on. Be courteous and check your message headers! -------------------------------------------------------------- Subscription to "nomic-business@teleport.com" and the Agora Nomic backup list, "nomic@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au" is also required of all Players. Send a message to "listserv@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au" with no Subject: and a body of "SUBSCRIBE NOMIC yourfirstname yourlastname" to subscribe to the backup list. To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to "Majordomo@ teleport.com" with no Subject: and a body of "unsubscribe nomic-official". Please send any other questions or comments to "coren@teleport.com". Thank you! Agora Nomic Distributor Coren =====10. info message for nomic-business >>>> info nomic-business [Last updated on: Fri Dec 2 1:21:33 1994] Welcome to Agora Nomic and the nomic-business mailing list !!! -------------------------------------------------------------- SUBSCRIPTION TO THIS LIST IS REQUIRED OF ALL PLAYERS! This list is for Agora Nomic business-related messages, *ONLY*. This includes official questions and/or corrections in reply to messages posted to "nomic-official" by officers, official messages from Officers which are not otherwise required by the Rules, and messages from Players which the Rules require be posted either to "the Public Forum", "all Players", or some other form of general communication. Included in this catagory are point and currency transfers between Players, On and Off Hold announcements, Office transfers, and all other messages of a "semi-official" or Rules- required nature that are not appropriate for posting in "nomic- official". THIS LIST AND "NOMIC-OFFICIAL" ARE DESIGNATED TO MEET ALL SUCH PURPOSES BY THE AGORA NOMIC DISTRIBUTOR, AND ARE THE *ONLY* MEDIUMS SO DESIGNATED. All messages to this list must be clearly marked as being from a specific Player; no completely anonymous messages are allowed. For the moment, messages containing only "proto-proposals", and clearly marked as such, should ALSO be directed to this list, barring any objections from Players who would rather see such directed to nomic-discussion. ALL OTHER messages which are unrelated to Agora Nomic, or which are purely of a discussionary nature, INCLUDING discussion of current Proposals and proto-proposals, and any questions regarding messages posted to "nomic-official" or "nomic-business" which are NOT of an official nature should be posted to "nomic-discussion@teleport.com". PLEASE - DO NOT ABUSE THIS LIST BY POSTING INELIGIBLE MESSAGES!!! This system is designed to allow people with limited time or resources to play Agora Nomic while receiving the absolute minimum number of messages necessary to know what is going on. Be courteous and check your message headers! Please post questions or corrections regarding messages on this list, or any other official business related messages to "nomic-business@teleport.com" Please post ALL OTHER messages to "nomic-discussion@teleport.com". -------------------------------------------------------------- Subscription to "nomic-official@teleport.com" and the Agora Nomic backup list, "nomic@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au" is also required of all Players. Send a message to "listserv@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au" with no Subject: and a body of "SUBSCRIBE NOMIC yourfirstname yourlastname" to subscribe to the backup list. To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to "Majordomo@ teleport.com" with no Subject: and a body of "unsubscribe nomic-business". Please send any other questions or comments to "coren@teleport.com". Thank you! Agora Nomic Distributor Coren ====================================================================== Judgment: FALSE Relevant Rules: 911, 478, 591, 408, 910, 991, 662, 789 Arguments: In order to determine the question at hand we must define exactly what Rule 911/1 requires before a CFJ is Appealed. The relevant sentence is: "A Judgement may be Appealed upon the insistence of any three Players to the Public Forum." For the moment I'll ignore the phrase "A Judgement may be Appealed." I'll get back to it at the end of my statement. First, it needs to be settled what the phrase "insistence of any three Players to the Public Forum" actually means. Now, it is true that the grammar of this sentence could be interpreted so that the phrase "to the Public Forum" is referring to "Appealed." This interpretation means that there are no explicit strictures, or even definition, of a Player's "insistence." I think, however, that Game Custom supports interpreting this phrase to refer to the "Player's insistence." Also, Game Custom also supports interpreting "Player's insistence" as a message explicitly calling for an Appeal. So it is this Judge's opinion that the phrase: "insistence of any three Players to the Public Forum" When filtered through the lens of Game Custom, means: "three messages in the Public Forum, from three different Players, calling for an Appeal." I quote from Chuck's Arguments: "[...] Coren and TAL have posted their calls for appeal directly to nomic-business, which constitutes the Public Forum. (I can find no explicit evidence that Distributor Coren has defined nomic- business as the Public Forum; however, the info message with nomic-business states that all Players are required to be subscribed to it, which I take as definition as the Public Forum. The same applies to nomic-offical.)" This is a valid appeal to Game Custom, which is that nomic-business and nomic-official are currently the Public Forum when no other definition exists. However, even if Distributor had no such Public Forum defined when this question occurred, Rule 478/1 states: "If a Rule requires that a message is send to the Public Forum, then a message send to all Active Players fulfills this requirement as well." Since nomic-business is required to be subscribed to by all Players, it is the Public Forum outside any statement by the Distributor, or at least as long as the Distributor does not specifically exclude it as such. [At this point the Judge would like to call attention to a tense error in 478/1, "send" should be "sent."] It is therefore clear that Coren and TAL, by posting directly to nomic- business, fulfilled the requirements (such as they are) of 911/1. The messages from Coren and TAL consist of two valid "insistences." What remains is Chuck's own "insistence." Again, I quote from Chuck's arguments: "[...] I included [my insistence] in my Reasons and Arguments on my Judgement of CFJ 750 which was not posted directly by me to the Public Forum; it was sent to COTC Kelly. Kelly then posted it to [...] the Public Forum. (She is required to send it to all Players, by Rules 408 and 591 ; by Rule 478, this constitutes the Public Forum.)" It is clear, even without recourse to Common Sense, that Chuck has a very valid point here. The re-formulated version of Rule 478, as quoted above, defines *any* message sent [send] to "all Active Players" as the "Public Forum." Chuck: "I included [my insistence] in my Reasons and Arguments on my Judgement of CFJ 750" Rule 408/1: "A Judgement is delivered by submitting that Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts, who must then distribute that Judgement to all Players as soon as possible." Rule 591/1: "Such reasons and arguments form no part of the Judgement itself. However, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the reasons and arguments along with the Judgement." It is obvious that, because the CotC is required by the rules to send a Judgement to "all Players," and that Judgement must also be accompanied by the "reasons and arguments," then any message included in the "reasons and arguments" is being sent to the "Public Forum" as defined by 478/1. Therefore Chuck has sent a valid "insistence," fulfilling the three insistence requirement of rule 911/1. Which brings us back to the question at hand: "Rule 911 should be interpreted such that CFJ 750 has been successfully appealed." There is a problem here, and that problem is the phrase "successfully appealed." Specifically, was it legal for Kelly, as the CotC, to refuse to accept Chuck's insistence, even if it *was* properly made to the Public Forum? I quote Kelly's message of Sun, 12 Mar 95 02:34:51 EST5: "i continue to hold that your privately-expressed insistence upon appeal is not binding upon me." If it is legal for Kelly to do this, then the Appeal would certainly not be "successful." If the question had been: "Rule 911 should be interpreted such that CFJ 750 has been appealed." I would have no problem, relying on Game Custom, in judging this CFJ as TRUE. However, Chuck's introduction of 911's language into the question forces me to consider what the phrase "successfully appealed" actually means. The rub is in the phase I alluded to earlier, "A Judgement may be Appealed upon..." It doesn't say a "A Judgement will be Appealed by..." or "A Judgement must be Appealed by..." or even, "A Judgement is Appealed in the following manner..." In fact, the phrasing of that first sentence, "A Judgement may be Appealed upon the insistence of any three Players to the Public Forum," even when filtered through Game Custom and Common Sense, does not-- I repeat, does *not*-- imply that three insistences are a necessary and sufficient condition for a CFJ to be Appealed. The word "may" says that the CFJ also "may *not*" be appealed. Three insistences to the Public Forum only allows this decision to be made. The fact that this decision has always been in the affirmative beforehand does not change the language of the Rule. Worse, the word "upon" implies that it is not the three insisting Players who are doing the Appealing! It is clear that, once three insistences are made, a further step-- beyond the three insistences-- must be taken for an CFJ to be successfully Appealed. Following 911/1 language to decipher what is happening leads me to the following conclusions: 1) Three insistences to the Public Forum allow, but does not require, a CFJ to be Appealed. 2) Some Entity that is not the three insisting Players has the power to Appeal the CFJ. 3) This Entity has the power to Appeal or not Appeal, as it chooses, since 911/1 does not specifically bind it to do so. So, who or what, is this Entity? 911/1 does not help much, since after this troublesome sentence it goes directly into what happens once a CFJ is "successfully Appealed." Neither is 910/1, which defines the duties of Justices and has little bearing on making Appeals. Which leaves us with Common Sense. Which, I believe, suggests that this Entity is, in fact, the Clerk of the Courts. It is the CotC who accepts CFJ's (Rule 991/0) and determines if a CFJ is accepted for Judgement (Rule 662/0.) It therefore follows, if a power exists to decide if an Appeal is "successful" or not, and whether the Appeal is made or not, it resides with the CotC. It is therefore the opinion of this Judge that CotC Kelly did in fact have the legal power to deny Chuck's insistence, *even if* such an insistence was made to the Public Forum. Therefore I have no choice but to rule FALSE on CFJ 752. Since CotC Kelly has refused to Appeal CFJ 750, and has the power to do so arbitrarily via Rule 911/1, CFJ 750 has *not* been successfully Appealed, even though, in this Judge's opinion, three Players have made insistences to the Public Forum as otherwise required by Rule 911/1. Injunction: Since I am ruling this CFJ FALSE, I cannot via Rule 789/1 issue an Injunction to annotate 911/1. This is truly unfortunate, in that this is a rather important interpretation of the CotC's power. I therefore make a non-binding request to the Rulekeepor to add an unofficial comment to Rule 911 stating that the CotC has the power to reject Appeals. ------------------------------------- Relevant evidence not included with CFJ 752: ---------------------------------------- Text of Kelly's message denying Chuck's insistence: [irrelevant header meterial deleted] >Date: Sun, 12 Mar 95 02:34:51 EST5 >From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin) >To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com >Cc: nomic-discussion@teleport.com >Subject: Re: OFF: Judgement of CFJ 750 (Speaker ElJefe violated Rule 452...) "Charles" == Charles E Carroll writes: Charles> Nothing in Rule 911 or 478 implies that it has to be posted Charles> *by me* to the Public Forum. The fact that it has been Charles> posted to the Public Forum is sufficient, and my call for Charles> appeal is valid. 911 states that "A Judgement may be Appealed upon the insistence of any three Players to the Public Forum." i do not see how a third party can convey the insistence of another player to the Public Forum. i believe this is disanalogous to the situation with point transfers; in that case the transfer is what needs to be posted. in this case, the player must express eir insistence to the public forum. i contend that another player cannot act as an intermediate vehicle of such expression. your insistence of appeal was made not to the public forum, but to me, personally. i continue to hold that your privately-expressed insistence upon appeal is not binding upon me. feel free to CFJ on the matter. as an aside, i think this phrasing in 911/1 is perfectly terrible. k. -- kelly martin Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea--massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it. --Gene Spafford, 1992 ---------------------------------------- Rule 910/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Appeals and the Justiciar Let there be three Players known as the Justices, and an Office known as the Justiciar. The Justiciar shall not receive a weekly salary. The Speaker and the Clerk of the Courts are ineligible to be Justiciar. The positions of Justice shall be held by the Speaker, the Clerk of the Courts, and the Justiciar; or by their representatives as detailed in this Rule. The Justices shall have the duty to Judge Statements that have been Appealed. They shall receive the same compensation as Judges for each Statement so Judged. The Speaker and Clerk may delegate their duties as Justices to other willing Players if they desire. They must do so if a Player would otherwise hold more than one position of Justice. Any Justice must so delegate eir duties for a particular case if e made the original CFJ, if e was the Judge of the original CFJ, or if e was Accused by that CFJ of breaking a Rule. If no Player is willing to receive the duties of Justice for a case, the Clerk of the Courts shall select one randomly. [In CFJ 728 Judge Vlad opined that Rules 910/0 and 897/0 jointly imply that a Player Barred from Judging a certain CFJ is also forbidden from serving as Justice on an Appeal of that CFJ.] History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1447, Feb. 21 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 991/0 (Mutable, MI=1) 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. No Player shall submit more than five CFJ's per week. (*Was: 407*) ---------------------------------------- Rule 662/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Allowed CFJ's A "Move" refers to any specific action taken by a Player or group of Players in the context of the game. Any invocation of Judgement must satisfy one or more of the following conditions: - clearly allege that a specific Move is illegal; - clearly allege that a specific Rule is illegal or lacking in legal force, in whole or in part; - clearly allege that a specific Rule ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege that the current published game state is incorrect, and in what respects. A CFJ which does not satisfy at least one of the above conditions shall be deemed invalid and shall not be accepted for Judgement by the Clerk of the Courts. However, this Rule shall defer to rules which explictly permit CFJs that do not necessarily meet the above conditions. ---------------------------------------- Rule 789/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Injunctions on Interpretations of Rules When a player makes a CFJ alleging that a Rule should be interpreted in a certain way, e shall also submit a list of Rules relevant to that CFJ, which must include the Rule in question. If the statement is Judged TRUE, the Judge may include with the Judgement an Injuction requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule in question with the Statement in the CFJ and the list of relevant Rules. The annotation shall remain only until one of the Rules in the list of relevant Rules is changed in any way; or until a CFJ determines that the injunction no longer applies, as described below. While it remains, it shall guide the application of that Rule. If a Player believes that the circumstances which led to the Judgement no longer prevail and the annotation is therefore no longer applicable, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is Judged TRUE, the annotation shall be stricken from the rule set. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1396, Jan. 29 1995 ---------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Judgement of the Justiciar: FALSE I uphold Swann's original Judgement that the Statement is FALSE. Swann's quite remarkable Judgement discovers in the language of Rule 911 a previously unsuspected power of the CotC to arbitrarily refuse to accept Appeals, even if these are made to the Public Forum. Perhaps this discovery outrages the sensibilities of those to whom it seems clear that Rule 911 was never intended to grant the CotC such a power. That is not my concern. It is my task to determine if Swann's Judgement was correct in law. In my view, Judge Swann was perfectly within his rights to read Rule 911 as closely as he did, and to deduce from the language contained therein his surprising conclusion. In the absence of an overriding reason to overturn his Judgement, I therefore uphold his Judgement that the Statement of CFJ 752 is FALSE. ====================================================================== Judgement of the Speaker: FALSE Swann's judgement of FALSE turns on the question of interpreting Rule 911, in particular the first sentence "A Judgement may be Appealed upon the insistence of any three Players to the Public Forum." After much discussion, he finds that Chuck's indirectly communicated insistence counts as "insistence to the Public Forum", but denies that the sentence actually mandates an Appeal. The wording is "may be Appealed upon", not "is Appealed upon" or "may be Appealed by". The first alternative phrasing would effect a legal event ("Appeal"), whereas the second alternative phrasing is a definition of how to effect the event; there really is no difference between them. Unfortunately and strangely, the actual language leaves the word "Appeal" adrift, with neither a mandate for when it occurs nor a definition of how to carry it out. Therefore I uphold the judgement of FALSE. ====================================================================== Judgment of the Delegate for the Clerk of the Courts: UNDECIDED Arguments: 1) Is Chuck's attempt to post an appeal to the Public Forum, with the CotC as intermediary, a valid posting to the Forum? I think the answer is yes. 911/1 requires that the Appeal message is send to the Public Forum. Rule 478/1 defines the Public Forum as: "The Public Forum is any medium defined by the Distributor as such." Obviously the CotC is not such a medium :-) However, the Rule continues: "If a Rule requires that a message is send to the Public Forum, then a message send to all Active Players fulfills this requirement as well." And this of course is exactly what Chuck did. The fact that the CotC was used as intermediary is irrelevant, because Chuck's appeal was inbedded in the Arguments to a Judgment and he know that the CotC was obliged to forward that message to all Active Players. Note that a few days earlier 478 had been amended. 478/0 put a time limit on the forwarding to all Players, which is no longer the case in 478/1. 2) Were there three Players insisting on the Appeal of CFJ 750? The answer is yes again. I established in 1) that Chuck did so, by indirect means. Coren and TAL on the other hand posted directly to nomic-discussion, which makes three Players in total. 3) Is three Players insisting on the Appeal of CFJ 750 a sufficient condition? Although Judge Swann made an argument to the contrary, I tend to think the answer here is `yes' too. However, we are close to the limits of my knowledge of English (and maybe outside :-) Swann's argument may be summarized as follows: 911 says: "A Judgement may be Appealed ...." The word "may" implies that the three insistences to the Public Forum only allows the decision of the Appeal to take place to be made. 911 uses `Appeal' in its verbal form. Well, `to appeal' means: 1: to take steps to have (a case) reheard in a higher court 2: to plead for help, corroboration, or decision 3: to arouse a sympathetic response Therefore the very act of `requesting a Judgment to be overturned' is equivalent to `Appealing'. And in Nomic that *may* be done by posting to the Public Forum. As shown in 1) and 2) three Players did so. Successfully, I might add: their messages made it to all Players. However, this dictionary definition of `appeal' combined with the 'upon' makes it for me impossible to parse the whole sentence, in a way it makes sense. I therefore will assume here that Swann is right. 4) Did CotC Kelly have the *legal* power to deny Chuck's insistence? According to Judge Swann, Common Sense [sic] dictates that the entity who takes the decision whether a Judgment is successfully appealed can only be the CotC. Swann arrives at this conclusion by pointing out the analogy with the CotC's power of decision in accepting CFJ's for Judgment (Rule 662). However, 911/1 claims: "If a Judgement is successfully Appealed, the Justices shall each Judge the Statement as if they were Judges." Without appealing to Common Sense I conclude that the CotC -who after all is a Justice- has the legal power to deny an insistence to appeal, because e shall Judge the Statement *only* if a Judgment is successfully Appealed. However, e may only do so, when this is legally justified and I established in 1) and 2) that this is not the case with respect to Chuck's appeal. Therefore, if *I* would have been Justice on CFJ 750 then I would have had no choice as to consider the Appeal. But, as Justice Steve points out bi-monthly, justice is for a large part interpretation and Justice Kelly apparently interprets Rule 478 differently, then I do. In fact, it might just be possible that Justice Kelly comes to one conclusion, while Justice Steve and Justice ElJefe arrive at another. At the time this CFJ was made we had not yet heard the opinion of the other two Justices on the matter! 5) Should Rule 911 be interpreted such that CFJ 750 has been successfully appealed? I summarize: - In my opinion, Chuck's appeal was legal, and so where Coren's and TAL's. - However, a Justice may refuse to take note of appeals if they are not legally made, in eir opinion. - At the time CFJ 752 was made we had not heard yet of the other two Justices. Whereas Rule 451 obliges me to base my evaluation on the `truth or falsity of the Statement at the time the CFJ was issued', and whereas two out of three Justices had not yet given their opinion on whether Chuck's indirect posting constituted a legal means of Appealing, I feel I have only the right to judge UNDECIDED. Note: I think 911 is not too bad. Apparently the three Justices may not only reJudge the CFJ if there is an Appeal, they may also "judge" whether there was an Appeal in the first place. That seems more logical to me then leaving it in the hands of one Officer only. References: Rule 451/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Determination of Judgement--Timing When a Judge is considering eir Judgement of a Statement contained in a CFJ, e shall make eir evaluation based on the truth or falsity of the Statement at the time the CFJ was issued. Rule 478/0 (Mutable, MI=1) The Public Forum The Public Forum is hereby defined as any medium by which one player sends or posts a message which, to the best of the sender's intent, knowledge, belief, and ability, is simultaneously sent to all active players and accurately dated to within 5 minutes. The terms "listserv" and "listserver" are synonymous with "Public Forum". Rule 478/1 (Mutable, MI=1) The Public Forum The Public Forum is any medium defined by the Distributor as such. If a Rule requires that a message is send to the Public Forum, then a message send to all Active Players fulfills this requirement as well" History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995 Rule 662/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Allowed CFJ's A "Move" refers to any specific action taken by a Player or group of Players in the context of the game. Any invocation of Judgement must satisfy one or more of the following conditions: - clearly allege that a specific Move is illegal; - clearly allege that a specific Rule is illegal or lacking in legal force, in whole or in part; - clearly allege that a specific Rule ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege that the current published game state is incorrect, and in what respects. A CFJ which does not satisfy at least one of the above conditions shall be deemed invalid and shall not be accepted for Judgement by the Clerk of the Courts. However, this Rule shall defer to rules which explictly permit CFJs that do not necessarily meet the above conditions. Rule 911/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Appealing Judgement A Judgement may be Appealed upon the insistence of any three Players to the Public Forum. If a Judgement is successfully Appealed, the Justices shall each Judge the Statement as if they were Judges. They may confer with each other on the case before delivering Judgement if they desire. If a Justice should fail to return Judgement in the allotted time, e shall be fined three Points for each day by which e missed the deadline. This fine shall be levied by the Scorekeepor. If a majority of the Justices' Judgements agree, the Statement shall be considered to have been Judged accordingly. Otherwise, it shall be considered to have been ruled UNDECIDED. The Justices' reasoning and arguments shall be recorded with the original CFJ. Once a Judgement has been made, the Justices may make Injunctions just as may Judges, provided a majority of them agree. The decision of the Justices is final; no further Appeal of that Statement may be made. If the decision of the original Judge of the Statement is changed by the Justices, the Judge shall forfeit the compensation e received for judging. (*Was: 690*) History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994 ====================================================================== -- kelly martin I have been told that when a large group of people believe in a fantasy, it is called a culture. When a small group believes, it is called a cult. When two people believe in a fantasy, it is called love; and when one person believes, it is called psychosis.