From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Fri Jun 23 07:44:46 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 HAA12876 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 07:36:46 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id FAA12065 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 05:34:55 -0700 Received: from wing4.wing.rug.nl (wing4.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.4]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id FAA12051 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 05:34:49 -0700 Message-Id: <199506231234.FAA12051@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing4.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA04775; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 14:34:59 +0200 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Judgement CFJ 779 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 14:34:59 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO I forgot the 'Effects of this CFJ'-part. I publicly apologize for that, and hope I can still repair my mistake. Andre. ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 779 ("Rule 1466 should be interpreted such that...") ====================================================================== Judgement: TRUE Judge: Michael Caller: Chuck Eligible: Andre, Dave Bowen, elJefe, Ian, JonRock, Kelly KoJen, Michael, Steve, SugarWater, Swann, Tal, Vanyel, Xanadu, Zefram Barred: none Not Eligible: Chuck (caller) Blob (1005) Coren, Pascal (On Hold & 1005) Effects of this CFJ: Michael receives 5 Points for Speedy Judgement. The Scorekeeport is required to annotate 1466 as described in the Injunction ====================================================================== History: Called by Chuck, June 21 1995, 19:16 +0200 Assigned to Michael, June 22 1995, 09:58 UTC Judged TRUE by Michael, June 23 1995, 10:53 BST ====================================================================== Statement: Rule 1466 should be interpreted such that a Proposal containing one or more Currency Directives, and no other Directives or Rule Changes which would require the Proposal to have a Adoption Index greater than 1, has a Adoption Index of 1. Relevant Rules: 1466, 594, 993 ====================================================================== Requested injunction: I also request that the Judge make an Injunction on the interpetation of Rule 1466, as described in Rule 789. (Even though this request is not necessary for the Judge to make the Injunction.) ====================================================================== Arguments: (This is essentially a resubmission of CFJ 769, with an unfortunate miswording corrected.) My statement is a bit long, but this, I feel, is necessary. Essentially, it says that the presence of a Currency Directive in and of itself in a Proposal does not require that Proposal to have an AI greater than 1. Rule 1466 states that "These Directives [Currency Directives] have an Adoption Index of 2." An Adoption Index of a Directive is essentially meaningless, as no other Rule makes any reference to the AI of a Directive. Rule 594 sets the Adoption Index of Proposals, but is mainly concerned with Rule Changes. It merely defers to other Rules which set a higher AI for certain Proposals. 1466 is *not* such a Rule, as it says nothing about the AI of any Proposals, only the AI of certain Directives. Rule 993, defining Directives, states, "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." Rule 1466 makes *no* requirements about the AI of any Proposal. Furthermore, both Rule 993 and Game Custom make clear that even if a Proposal contains only a single Directive, the Proposal is not the same as the Directive. Thus, there is no Rule which would require a Proposal of the sort defined in my statement (i.e. with one or more Currency Directives, and possibly other Directives and Rule Changes that do not require the Proposal to have an AI greater than 1) to have an AI greater than 1. Thus, by Rule 594, such a Proposal has an AI of 1. ====================================================================== Judgement: TRUE Argument: As the caller points out in their attached argument, rule 1466 fails to use the appropriate language to specify an AI for a proposal containing a Currency Directive. Instead, the rule mistakenly attempts to define an AI for the directive itself, a meaningless concept. Examples of the correct way to word specifications of AIs for Proposals containing Directives can be found in the 1006/2 (Directives to install an Officer), 1054/1 (Changing the category of a rule), 1052/1 (Creating new rule categories) and 649/1 (Patent titles). ====================================================================== Injunction: As allowed for by 789, I require the Scorekeepor to annotate rule 1466 with the Statement above, and the list of relevant rules (provided with the CFJ). ====================================================================== References: 1. Rule 1466 2. Rule 594 3. Rule 993 ======1. Rule 1466 Rule 1466/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Currency Directives There is a type of Directive, called a Currency Directive. These Directives have an Adoption Index of 2. If adopted, they have the effect of specifying the Currency holdings contained in an Entity or Entities' Treasury or Treasuries. They may have no other effects. History: Created by Proposal 1596, Jun. 2 1995 ======2. Rule 594 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 ======3. Rule 993 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andre