From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Wed Jun 28 03:36:53 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 DAA00482 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 03:34:10 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id BAA07568 for nomic-official-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 01:33:29 -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 BAA07562 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 01:33:25 -0700 Message-Id: <199506280833.BAA07562@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing1.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA21774; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 10:34:34 +0200 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Judgement CFJ 778 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Wed, 28 Jun 95 10:34:33 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO JUDGEMENT CFJ 778 ("The combination of Rules 594/1 and 993/1...") ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Judge: Xanadu Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Dave B., elJefe, Ian, JonRock, Kelly, Michael, Steve, SugarWater, TaL, Vanyel, Xanadu, Zefram Caller: Swann Barred: KoJen Not Eligible: Swann (caller) KoJen (barred) Blob (1005) Coren, Pascal (1005 & On Hold) Effects: Xanadu receives 3 Points for timely Judgement ====================================================================== Statement: "The combination of Rules 594/1 and 993/1 should be interpreted to mean that a Proposal can *only* be a Proposal and be legally distributed by the Promotor, if *and only if* it contains both a Rule Change *and* a Directive." ====================================================================== History: Called by Swann, Jun 21 1995, 09:13 MET Assigned to Xanadu, Jun 21 1995, 09:54 UTC Judged FALSE by Xanadu, Jun 28 1995, 00:10 +1000 (EST) ######################################################################## Arguments: Kojen does this much better than I, I will repeat Kojen's fantastic discovery about these two rules: -------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #97 (107 is last): Date: Tue Jun 20 07:49:04 1995 From: cogen@ll.mit.edu (David Cogen) Subject: OFF: Promotor's Report To: nomic-official@teleport.com Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Several Players have been after me to get the Promotor's Report out. I apologize for the delay. I have been studying the Rules pertaining to the duties of the Promotor, and soliciting the valued opinions of our Wisest Players. Submissions have een received from JonRock (4), Steve (3), Swann (1), and Andre (1). None of these are Proposals. By R594, a Proposal may contain one or more Rule Changes. By R993, a Proposal may contain one or more Directives. Together, they require a Proposal to contain at least one Rule Change *and* at least one Directive. None of the submissions met this requirement. Clearly, Rules 594 and 993 need to be amended. Watch for a proto, immediately following this message. (When I began to study the Rules relating to the Promotor, I neither expected nor desired this outcome. But I am convinced that no other interpretation is reasonable. How could we have overlooked this before?) -- KoJen ------------------------------------------------------------- Obviously the Promotor is privy to great wisdom not granted to us mere mortals. To divine such exclusivity inherent within two separate rules with conditional clauses requires a great mind. I am unable to approach such reasoning myself. . . I must assume that the lack of Kojen's CFJ on this critical and fundamental matter within the Ruleset must simply be an oversight and I see it as my duty as an Agora citizen to petition the Judiciary to accept such fundamental wisdom. It is, indeed fundamental. Look at how far-ranging Kojen's perceptive argument reaches: Rule 1451/0: "A player may disown their own proposal" Rule 991/0: "a Player may invoke Judgement" Rule 692/3: "A Player may voluntarily transfer Points" Rule 1440: "A Player may Erase eir Blots" Indeed, there is an intricate web of things that "may" be done, and it is Kojen's legacy to us to take the scales off of our eyes, to make us aware that the word "may" does not imply an option at all, it does in fact bear the weight of a prescriptive *demand* upon us. It is our duty to follow such logic when presented in such a lucid, effective, and altogether helpful manner. {Opinions within this CFJ may not necessarily represent those of the Caller.} ====================================================================== Judgement & Reasoning of Judge: I judge the statement to be FALSE. My reasoning is as follows: In the opinion of this Judge, the relevant sentences of both rule 594/1 and rule 993/1 (those beginning "A Proposal may contain ...") state nothing more than "the inclusion of Rule Changes and/or Directives in a submission that might otherwise be a Proposal does not preclude said submission from being a Proposal." I thus interpret the rules as meaning that the inclusion of one or more Rule Changes and Directives in a Proposal is optional; both, one or neither may occur. I believe that this interpretation of the use of "may" in the ruleset is in keeping with Game Custom. #################################################### Refrences: ---------------------------------------- Rule 594/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Proposals and Rule Changes A Proposal may contain one or more Rule Changes. If a Proposal containing Rule Changes is adopted, the Rule Changes contained in the Proposal shall take effect in the order they appear in the Proposal. The Adoption Index of a Proposal shall be the least Index which is not less than the minimum Adoption Index which would allow all the Rule Changes within the Proposal to take effect. This paragraph yields to any Rule which may require a higher Adoption Index for a given Proposal. In no case may a Proposal have an Adoption Index of less than 1. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1323, Nov. 21 1994 ---------------------------------------- Rule 993/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Directives A Proposal may contain one or more Directives. A Directive, if adopted, causes some change in the Game State other than changing a Rule. No Directive may change any Rule. Only those Directives which are defined by the Rules may be placed in a Proposal. If a Proposal containing Directives is adopted, the Directives shall take effect in the order that they appear in the Proposal, and according to the Rule or Rule which define the type of each Directive in question. The Adoption Index of a Proposal containing a Directive must be at least as great as that required by the Rule or Rules which define the type of Directive contained in the Proposal. Any Proposal for which this is not true is not properly made. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1330, Nov. 22 1994 ---------------------------------------- Rule 1451/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Disowning Proposals A player may disown their own proposal if it has not yet been distributed or if no more than four days have passed since its distribution, by sending a statement disowning it to the Public Forum. The player so disowning a proposal loses a flat fee of five points, reported by the Assessor, but any other score changes, blots, or other effects resulting from the player's submission of that proposal, including but not limited to formatting penalties, rule repeal rewards, new player bonuses, and awards or penalties for votes cast on that proposal are cancelled and shall not be taken into account. The disowning Player does not receive any Extra Votes for a Proposal he disowned, even if it passes. Neither the Assessor nor any Player who has been Assessor since the beginning of the voting period on that proposal may disown a proposal, unless that proposal has not yet been distributed. This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which would otherwise seek to reward or penalize any player based on the disowned proposal. History: Created by Proposal 1549, Apr. 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 692/3 (Mutable, MI=1) Trading Points A Player may voluntarily transfer Points in eir possession to any other Player for any purpose, within the following limits: (a) the transfer must be posted to the Public Forum (b) a Player may only transfer a positive number of Points (c) a Player may not transfer more Points than e currently has (d) a Player may not transfer Points if the recipient has more than than 90% of the Points required to Win, or would pass this limit as a result of the transfer. If any agreement among Players includes any transfer of Points between two Players then each such transfer shall be in accordance with the above. But this Rule shall not be construed as having any bearing on the legality or legal enforceability of any terms of said agreement which do not involve such a transfer. All Nomic Entities shall abide by the above limits whenever Points are traded. If a Nomic Entity must trade Points by the current Rules but would end up breaking the above limits, then the Nomic Entity trades the maximum amount possible without breaking any of the above limits. This Rule shall have precedence over all other Rules pertaining to the Trading of Points. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1360, Dec. 13 1994 Amended(2) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 1560, Apr. 17 1995 ---------------------------------------------- Rule 1440/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Erasing Blots A Player may Erase eir Blots by spending five Points for each Blot Erased. A Player may Erase any number of Blots as long as e does not reduce eir Point total below zero. A Player with less than five Points may not Erase Blots. The Player Erasing Blots must report to the Tabulator and the Scorekeepor the number of Blots e is Erasing, and the Points required to do so. If this requires more Points than the Player has at the time of the request, then no Blots are erased, and no Points are lost. If there are sufficient Points, the Scorekeepor reduces the Player's Points by the required amount and the Tabulator reduces the Player's Blots as requested. Other rules may define additional methods of Erasing Blots. History: Created by Proposal 1461, Mar. 1 1995 ---------------------------------------- -- Steven Swiniarski (aka S Andrew Swann) gb485@cleveland.freenet.edu Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship. --Harry S Truman