From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Fri Jul 7 07:49:33 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 HAA00234 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 1995 07:45:55 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id EAA02691 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 1995 04:00:17 -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 DAA02618 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 1995 03:59:49 -0700 Message-Id: <199507071059.DAA02618@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing4.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA25312; Fri, 7 Jul 1995 12:59:43 +0200 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: CFJ 781: Correction To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Fri, 7 Jul 95 12:59:43 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 781 (CORRECTED) ("The correct interpretation of Rule 1466...") ====================================================================== Judge: Michael (defaulted) KoJen Judgement: FALSE Caller: Troublemaker At Large Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Dave Bowen, elJefe, Ian, JonRock, Kelly, KoJen, Steve, SugarWater, Swann, Vanyel, Xanadu, Zefram Not Eligible: Troublemaker At Large (caller) Blob (1005) Coren, Pascal (1005 & On Hold) Michael (defaulted) Effect: Michael gains 3 Blots and is not eligible anymore as a Judge. BEWARE! The 10 Point loss given earlier does NOT apply. KoJen gains 3 Points for timely Judgement. Rule 1446 should be annotated as described in the Judge's Injunction ====================================================================== History: Called by TAL, June 22 1995, 13:16 SET Assigned to Michael, June 23 1995, 09:00 UTC Defaulted by Michael, June 30 1995, 09:00 UTC Assigned to KoJen, June 30 1995, 15:50 UTC Judged FALSE by KoJen, July 6 1995, 15:56 -0400 ====================================================================== Statement: The correct interpretation of Rule 1466 implies that it does not limit the effect of a Currency Directive on adoption to only one moment in time. Requested injunction: I 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.) ====================================================================== Decision & Injunction: My judgement on CFJ781 is FALSE. Injunction: Rule 1446 shall be annotated as follows: This Rule should be interpeted such that a Currency Directive causes a one-time change to a Treasury, in the same manner as in involuntary transfer. ====================================================================== Arguments: According to 1446 a Currency Directive has the effect of specifying the Currency holdings contained in some Treasury. However, nowhere in the Rules it is said for how long the Currency Directive remains effective. 1446 states only "if adopted", which excludes the CD from having any effect before the adoption of the Proposal containing the CD, but learns us nothing about the time of application, after adoption. The generic Rule on Directives 993, doesn't help either. In its first paragraph it uses exactly the same wording: "A Directive, if adopted, causes some change in the Game State other than changing a Rule." The second paragraph claims: "If a Proposal containing Directives is adopted, the Directives shall take effect in the order that they appear in the Proposal" which changes the starting moment a little bit, but nothing more. In fact, none of the other Directives has an effectiveness that is limited to one specific moment in time. So why should the Currency Directive? ====================================================================== Reasoning of Judge: At first, I almost thought that TRUE *might* be a plausible ruling because of this phrase in Rule 1466: If adopted, they have the effect of specifying the Currency holdings contained in an Entity or Entities' Treasury or Treasuries. The word is "specify" rather than "set". "Specify" has connotations which *can* imply a lasting influence, contrasted with "set" which implies an action at a specific instant. Note that most other Directives do not create this ambiguity, because the action caused by most other Directives is described using a verb which, like "set", clearly implies an action applied at a specific instant. So Rule 1466, alone among all Directives, is ambiguous as to whether it implies a continuous effect (in this case, on a Currency, nullifying all other attempts to change the Currency). How do we handle this? Several ways. 1) "Common sense". It is clearly a ludicrous interpretation that a Currency Directive can serve as a permanent impediment to any change to that Currency, even as amounts are added and removed to that treasury by voluntary and involuntary transfers. Of course, common sense is used as a last resort in Agora, but I believe it was used in other recent judgements. (Who said, "if there are two interpretations, one of which leads to contradictions and ther other of which does not, use the one which does not"?) I believe that is applicable here. 2) A perhaps more convincing way to solve the ambiguity, and justify the ruling of FALSE, is in Rule 993 itself. The second paragraph contains the sentence: 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 defining Rule for Directives clearly explains how to order multiple Directives which occur in a single Proposal. But if a Directive could cause a continuous action into the future, then such ordering would be unnecessary, and would not even make sense. Thus I am forced to conclude that Rule 993 clearly defines Directives to cause an action to occur at a specific instant in time only. ====================================================================== References: 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. 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. ====================================================================== Andre