From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Fri Jun 23 03:59:46 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 DAA12317 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 03:52:46 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id BAA25251 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 01:52:23 -0700 Received: from wing1.wing.rug.nl (wing1.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.1]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA25241 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 01:52:15 -0700 Message-Id: <199506230852.BAA25241@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing1.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA17647; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 10:52:47 +0200 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Judgement CFJ 775 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 10:52:47 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO JUDGMENT OF CFJ 775 (The Clerk of the Courts violated Rule 1431/1...) ###################################################################### Judge: Zefram Judgement: FALSE Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Dave Bowen, elJefe, Ian, JonRock, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Steve, SugarWater, TAL, Vanyel, Xanadu, Zefram Caller: Swann Not Eligible: Swann (caller) Blob (1005) Coren, Pascal (1005 & On Hold) Effects of this CFJ: Zefram gains 3 Points for timely Judgement ###################################################################### History: Called by Swann, June 18 1995, 11:33 MET Assigned to Zefram, June 18 1995, 12:48 UTC Judged FALSE by Zefram, June 22 1995, 08:53 +0100 (BST) ###################################################################### Statement: "The Clerk of the Courts violated Rule 1431/1 by distributing CFJ 772, CFJ 722, and the Appeal of CFJ 771. (This statement makes no allegation concerning the validity of these documents.)" ###################################################################### Arguments: On Thu, 15 Jun 95 12:17:36 Kelly posted a COE to the Public Forum: "I claim that the Clerk of the Courts erred, in claiming that the document issued as CFJ 771 is actually a legal CFJ." As far as I can determine, the current CotC has yet to respond to affirm or deny any of the COEs pending against the Clerk's Office. However, rule 1431/1 mandates: "The Respondant shall immediately investigate the claim of error, and, as soon as possible after the posting of the claim, either admit the claim and issue an official correction to the document, or deny the claim." And rule 1023/2 defines "as soon as possible" as: "within a week, and no later than any other action e is subsequently required to perform." The Clerk's distribution of statements to be Judged is an action e is required to perform (Rule 991/0): "The Clerk of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players." The CotC distributed the first CFJ 772 on Fri, 16 Jun 95 11:07:41 METDST, *after* Kelly's COE, but *before* responding to it. Therefore the CotC is in violation of Rule 1431/1. This is not trivial. If the Clerk, for instance, admits Kelly's Claim then every subsequent CFJ needs to be renumbered. Considering the volume of recent CFJs, a delay in addressing any of the COEs-- two of which allege that distributed CFJs are not legitimate-- will cause needless legal confusion. Note: This CFJ, if found TRUE, will not deprive any other CFJ of its legal force. To quote 1023/2: "This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have." By extension, the Clerk's violation of the "as soon as possible" clause of 1431/1 does not deprive the distributed CFJs and Appeals of the effects they would have had the Clerk observed the Rule. Further note: The violation of "as soon as possible" incurs a penalty of 10 points (Rule 1023/2) and of 1 Blot (Rule 1439/0) if this is found TRUE, Tabulator take note. ###################################################################### Decision: FALSE ###################################################################### Reasoning and Comments: For the second time this week, a CFJ has failed due to a typo in the statement. I will first discuss what would have happened to this judgment if the statement had instead been "The Clerk of the Courts violated Rule 1431/1 by distributing CFJ 772, CFJ 772, and the Appeal of CFJ 771. (This statement makes no allegation concerning the validity of these documents.)", assuming that the two "CFJ 772"s refer to the two CFJs given the number 772, the second of which should have been CFJ 773. In that case, Swann's argument (above) would be entirely correct. Kelly did post a legal Claim of Error to the Public Forum, requiring Andre (the Clerk of the Courts) to respond "as soon as possible". Andre subsequently distributed two CFJ 772s, and the appeal of CFJ 771, as the rules require. He therefore neglected to respond to the COE as soon as possible, in violation of 1431/1. Thus such a CFJ would be judged TRUE. The actual statement in CFJ 775 contained a reference to CFJ 722. The salient points concerning CFJ 722 are: (a) its posting was not in violation of rule 1431/1; and (b) it was posted on 15th November 1994, when Vanyel was the CotC. Therefore in order for the (correct) argument given in CFJ 775 to be relevant to the statement, it is necessary for it to be decided that: (a) the statement does not state that *each* of the required posts violated rule 1431/1, but merely that *the three combined* violated rule 1431/1; and (b) the words "the Clerk of the Courts" in the statement refer to *whoever held the office at the appropriate time*, rather than to *the current Clerk of the Courts*, namely Andre. To explain the above: as the posting of CFJ 722 did not violate rule 1431/1, then an interpretation of the statement that it states that *each* of the posts violated rule 1431/1 would make the statement FALSE. However, if the statement meant that "distributing CFJ 772, CFJ 722, and the Appeal of CFJ 771" should be taken as a single action (gramatically), then it is clear that this action did violate rule 1431/1, making that part of the statement TRUE. If the words "the Clerk of the Courts" are taken to refer to Andre specifically, then the statement is FALSE because Andre did not distribute CFJ 722. That is, unless he made some unrecorded and otherwise legally insignificant distribution of CFJ 722, that I cannot confirm. If "the Clerk of the Courts" is taken to mean the official position, rather than Andre, then it is TRUE that the Clerk of the Courts distributed CFJ 722, as well as the other CFJs mentioned. Note that the creation date of rule 1431/1 is not at all relevant to the question of whether CFJ 722 violated it. It is simply the case that to have done so would not be illegal, and hence that allegation alone would not be sufficient basis for a legal CFJ under rule 662/1. However, the other parts of the statement, regardless of interpretation, do clearly allege that certain Moves were illegal. On the two interpretation matters, I rule as follows: the matter of whether the statement treats "distributing CFJ 772, CFJ 722, and the Appeal of CFJ 771" as a single action I judge to be FALSE, after enquiring of the Caller which meaning he had intended. Whether "the Clerk of the Courts" refers to the position rather than the incumbent at the time of the CFJ, I judge TRUE, because rule 889/1 (Clerk of the Courts) clearly states "there shall exist an Office "Clerk of the Courts"...". Hence I must judge FALSE, on the grounds that distribution of CFJ 722 did not violate rule 1431/1. ###################################################################### References & Evidence: ----------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1023/2 (Mutable, MI=1) Definition of "As Soon As Possible" Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", e is required to perform that action within a week, and no later than any other action e is subsequently required to perform. Failure to observe these time requirements shall result at a minimum in the incursion of a 10 point penalty; other Rules may impose further penalties. However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time. This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them. This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold. (*Was: 805/907*) History: Created by Proposal 805 [date unknown] Amended by Proposal 907 [date unknown] Amended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 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 1431/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Claims of Error If a Player, hereafter called the Claimant, believes any official report or document to contain an error, e shall post to the Public Forum a statement that e believes the report to be in error, specifying the nature of the error, and requesting the Player responsible for the document, hereafter called the Respondant, to correct the error. The Respondant shall immediately investigate the claim of error, and, as soon as possible after the posting of the claim, either admit the claim and issue an official correction to the document, or deny the claim. Such admission or denial shall be posted to the Public Forum. If and only if the Respondant does not admit the claim, the Claimant may, within one week of the posted denial (or the expiration of any prescribed time limit for the Respondant's response), make a Call for Judgement alleging the document to be in error. If the Respondant does not admit the claim and a subsequent Call for Judgement finds that the claim is true, the Respondant shall lose 5 points. The Claimant is responsible for reporting this score change when it occurs. There is no penalty under this Rule if the Respondant admits the claim and corrects the error without a Call for Judgement having been made. A claim is illegal and may not be made if: a) another claim has previously been made alleging the same error, unless this prior claim was not admitted and the time limit to make a CFJ has expired; b) the document containing the error was published more than 21 days prior to the claim; or c) the Player making the claim is the same as the Player responsible for the document alleged to be in error. d) the report in error has been superceded by another report. For the purpose of this Rule, an "offical report or document" is any report or document which an Officer (or the Speaker) is required to maintain by the Rules in the course of eir duties as that Officer (or as Speaker), and an "error" is the omission or inclusion of any information which causes the official report or document to allege that the Game State is in any way different than it actually is. No Call for Judgement may be made alleging that a document contains errors except as prescribed in this Rule. This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which might allow a Call for Judgement prohibited by this Rule to be made, or which might prohibit a Call for Judgement permitted by the Rule from being made. History: Created by Proposal 1431, Feb. 7 1995 Amended(1) by Proposal 1491, Mar. 15 1995 ----------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1439/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Blots Due to a CFJ If a Call For Judgment (CFJ) clearly alleging that a Player has violated a specific Rule is found to be TRUE, the Player receives Blots equal to the Mutability Index of the violated Rule rounded down to the nearest whole integer, or four Blots if its Mutability Index exceeds four. This Rule defers to the wording of the violated Rule when it defines a Blot penalty in the specific case of a CFJ, or specifically forbids Blot penalties in the case of a CFJ. The Player who initially called for the CFJ has the Legal Responsibility to report Blots due to the CFJ to the Tabulator. History: Created by Proposal 1460, Mar. 1 1995 ----------------------------------------------------------- From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Assignment CFJ 772 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Fri, 16 Jun 95 11:07:41 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com ASSIGNMENT CFJ 772 (The injunction issued by Judge Ian in CFJ 771 is Illegal) ====================================================================== Judge: Vanyel [ CFJ text deleted for brevity ] ----------------------------------------------------------- From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Assignment CFJ 772 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Fri, 16 Jun 95 11:02:33 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com ASSIGNMENT CFJ 772 (Player Swann committed an illegal act...) ====================================================================== Judge: Dave Bowen [ CFJ text deleted for brevity ] ----------------------------------------------------------- From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Assignment Appeal CFJ 771 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Fri, 16 Jun 95 10:45:50 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com ASSIGNMENT UPON APPEAL OF CFJ 771 (Swann was not Tabulator when Kelly spent 5 points...) ====================================================================== Judgement: TRUE Judge: Ian [ Appeal text deleted for brevity ] ----------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Jun 95 12:17:36 From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us To: nomic-business@teleport.com Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com I claim that the Clerk of the Courts erred, in claiming that the document issued as CFJ 771 is actually a legal CFJ. ###################################################################### Additional References & Evidence: ----------------------------------------------------------- Rule 662/1 (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, either implicitly or explicitly, that the Rules generally 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. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1486, Mar. 15 1995 ----------------------------------------------------------- Rule 889/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Clerk of the Courts 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 Clerk's salary shall be five points. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1441, Feb. 21 1995 ----------------------------------------------------------- +-----------------| CFJ #722 |------------------+ | Caller: Troublemaker at Large Date: 15.11.94 | | Barred: | | Ineligible: KoJen | +-----------------------------------------------+ | Judge: Nicol Date Judged: MISTAKE | | Reassigned 15.11.94@ 22:05 CST | | Judge: Down with 815! Date Judged: 16.11.94 | | Judgment: FALSE | +-----------------------------------------------+ [ Text of Judgment deleted for brevity ] ----------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 9 Nov 94 09:58:44 -0500 From: cogen@ll.mit.edu (David Cogen) To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: Registrar's Reports I sent this yesterday but it didn't appear. ==== AGORA NOMIC REGISTRAR'S REPORTS========================================= DATE OF LAST REPORT : 11/01/94 DATE OF THIS REPORT : 11/08/94 [ News section, Player Lists and Milestones deleted for brevity ] ===== 3.0 BLUE PAGES ========================================================= {Listing of Officers, the Speaker; etc. Please see White Pages for addresses. Please see Group Report for Group Officers, which should be considered part of the Blue Pages for the purpose of satisfication of the Blue Pages Rule.} SPEAKER : the Pink Bimbo OFFICERS: Ambassador : Down with 815! Archivist : Vanyel Assistant : Coren Banker : the Pink Bimbo Clerk Of The Courts : Vanyel Distributor : Coren Herald : Lee Justiciar : Troublemaker at Large Registrar : KoJen Rulekeepor : Down with 815! Scorekeepor : Troublemaker at Large Sweepstakes Officer : Coren [ Special Listings, Group Report, Hall of Fame and Yellow Pages deleted for brevity ] ###################################################################### Andre