From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Thu May 11 18:58:56 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 SAA02659 for ; Thu, 11 May 1995 18:58:48 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id QAA02258 for nomic-official-outgoing; Thu, 11 May 1995 16:57:56 -0700 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 QAA02230 for ; Thu, 11 May 1995 16:57:49 -0700 Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0s9i6u-0001bZC; Thu, 11 May 95 18:57 EST Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga) id <2zzm@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Thu, 11 May 95 18:00:56 EST5 Date: Thu, 11 May 95 18:00:56 EST5 Message-Id: <9505112300.2zzm@poverty.bloomington.in.us> From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin) To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: CFJ766: Judgement Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 766 (The Rules should be interpreted, such that Proposal 1577...) ====================================================================== Judgement: TRUE Judge: Swann Eligible to Judge: Elde, TAL, JonRock, Blob, Xanadu, KoJen, Vlad, elJefe, Michael, Tang, Steve, Vanyel, Swann, Kelly, Dave Bowen, Ian Judge: Pascal, defaulted Eligible to Judge: Elde, JonRock, Blob, Xanadu, KoJen, Pascal, elJefe, Michael, Steve, Vanyel, Swann, Kelly, Dave Bowen, Jeffrey, Tang Judge: Oerjan, defaulted Eligible to Judge: Elde, JonRock, Oerjan, Blob, Xanadu, KoJen, Pascal, elJefe, Michael, Steve, Vanyel, Swann, Kelly, Dave Bowen, Jeffrey, Tang Caller: Chuck Scorekeepor: Oerjan loses 10 Points for defaulting on Judgement Pascal loses 10 Points for defaulting on Judgement Swann receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called Fri, 21 Apr 1995 03:53:38 -0500 by Chuck Assigned Fri, 21 Apr 1995 15:30 UTC to Oerjan Defaulted Fri, 28 Apr 1995 15:30 UTC by Oerjan --> Oerjan loses 10 Points for defaulting on Judgement Reassigned Sun, 30 Apr 1995 01:35 UTC to Pascal Defaulted Sun, 07 May 1995 01:35 UTC by Pascal --> Pascal loses 10 Points for defaulting on Judgement Reassigned Mon, 08 May 1995 06:40 UTC to Swann Judged TRUE Tue, 9 May 1995 17:34:56 -0400 by Swann ====================================================================== Statement: "The Rules should be interpreted, such that Proposal 1577 contains zero Rule Changes and zero Directives." Barred: Andre ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: At first glance, Proposal 1577 seems to contain a Directive to Change the Category of a Rule. But it does not; by Rule 1054, such a Directive must state the old category of the Rule, which Proposal 1577 does not do. (As an aside, I note that Promotor Coren *correctly* assigned Proposal 1577 an AI of 1, rather than the AI of 2 it would have if it contained a Directive to change the category of a Rule.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- References: I. Proposal 1577 II. Rule 1054. ======I. Proposal 1577 Proposal 1577 (Andre) Protoed, Short Adoption Index: 1 Change the Category of the Public Forum (Directive) Change the Category of Rule 478. The new Category should be 'The Distributor and the Assistant'. ======II. Rule 1054 Rule 1054/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Changing the Category of a Rule The assigned Category of an existing Rule may be changed by means of a Directive to change the Category of that Rule. Such a Directive shall clearly state the Rule whose Category is to be changed, its old Category, and its proposed new Category. The Proposal containing such a Directive must have an Adoption Index of at least 2. ====================================================================== Judgement: TRUE As to the first part of the Statement, Proposal 1577 does not even allege that it contains any Rule Changes, and it would be ludicrous for anyone to argue that it does. (Which leaves the Judge wondering why this needs to be part of the Statement, it is akin to a Statement saying, "Proposal 1577 was Proposed by Andre and contains zero Directives.") As to the part of the Statement I am Judging: "... Proposal 1577 contains [...] zero Directives." >From Proposal 1577: "Change the Category of Rule 478. The new Category should be 'The Distributor and the Assistant'." >From Rule 1054/1 (Changing the Category of a Rule): "Such a Directive shall clearly state the Rule whose Category is to be changed, its old Category, and its proposed new Category." Obviously, Proposal 1577 clearly states the Rule whose Category was to be changed, and its proposed new Category. It does not, however, state the old Category of the Rule. Therefore, this text, which alleges to be a Directive, is not a legally formed Directive as defined by the Rules. It is, I believe, accepted Judicial practice to assume that there is no such thing as a Directive not defined by the Rules-- there are only Directives and non-Directives. The text in Proposal 1577 is the latter, and therefore the Statement is TRUE. The Promotor was correct in assigning this Proposal any AI e deemed appropriate, since there is no set AI for a Proposal containing random text (other than it must be at least AI=1.) ======================================================================