From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Mon Jun 26 04:36:48 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 EAA19840 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 04:35:31 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id CAA01458 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 02:34:48 -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 CAA01451 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 02:34:43 -0700 Message-Id: <199506260934.CAA01451@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing4.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA18698; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 11:34:47 +0200 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Judgement CFJ 782 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Mon, 26 Jun 95 11:34:46 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ASSIGNMENT OF CFJ 782 ("That the most recent Promotor's report...") ====================================================================== Judge: Dave Bowen Judgement: FALSE Caller: Steve Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Dave Bowen, elJefe, Ian, JonRock, Kelly KoJen, Michael, SugarWater, Swann, TAL, Vanyel, Xanadu Zefram Barred: none Not Eligible: Steve (caller) Blob (1005) Coren, Pascal (On Hold & 1005) Changes: Dave Bowen receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement. ====================================================================== History: Called by Steve, Jun 23 1995, 01:24 +1000 (EST) Assigned to Dave Bowen, Jun 23 1995, 09:13 UTC Judged FALSE by Dave Bowen, Jun 23 1995, 09:19 -0500 ====================================================================== Statement: That the most recent Promotor's Report, in which a Proposal numbered 1607 has been distributed, is in error, in that this Proposal has been distributed later than other Proposals, not yet distributed by the Promotor, which were received by him earlier than this Proposal, and in that this Proposal has been distributed with an incorrect Number. Requested Injunction: I request that the Judge issue an Injunction requiring Promotor KoJen to distribute a corrected Promotor's Report forthwith, containing the texts and correct numbers for all the Proposals which has received since the numbering of Proposal 1606 and prior to the distribution of the erroneously numbered Proposal 1607. ====================================================================== Reasons and Arguments: Both the distribution and the numbering are in contravention of Rule 1036. First the distribution: Rule 1036 requires that the Promotor distribute numbered Proposals "not later than any subsequently received Proposal". Hence the Promotor cannot legally distribute the above Proposal unless and until he has distributed the other Proposals which he has received prior to this one. On the numbering: Rule 1036 requires the Promotor to assign Numbers to Proposals "as soon as possible" after receiving them. From Rule 1023, "as soon as possible" means "within a week, and no later than any other action which e is subsequently required to perform". Hence the above Proposal can only be numbered 1607 if the Promotor has not received any other Proposals since Proposal 1606 was given its number. I allege that this is not the case: that the Promotor has received other Proposals prior to this one, and that one of these Proposals (in fact, whichever was the earliest received of them) is the correct deserver of the number 1607. Naturally, the truth of the CFJ rests entirely on the matter of whether Promotor KoJen is correct in maintaining that he has in fact received no texts prior to the one he distributed as Proposal 1607, which are to be regarded as legally submitted Proposals. This matter is currently under consideration by another Judge. ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Reasoning: This judge agrees with Plantiff's claim that the truth of this CFJ rests entirely on the question of whether the Promoter has in fact received no validly submitted Proposals prior to the one he distributed as number 1607. This question is currently the issue in another CFJ. But by submitting this CFJ before the other CFJ has been decided, the Plantiff has forced this Judge to make his own determination of the facts in this issue. The relevant rules are 594/1 and 993/1. In both of them we find the dread word "may". This word has two generally accepted meanings in the English language the first roughly synonymous with "is allowed to" and the second roughly synonymous with "is required to". Rejecting those cases where the permissive interpretation is assigned to one rule and the restrictive interpretation is assigned to the other, we are left with two cases to consider. Under the permissive interpretation, anything meeting the other requirements for proposalhood would be a valid Proposal. It would make these rules meaningless. Thus we reject the permissive interpretation. This leaves us with the restrictive interpretaion for both rules and we are forced to agree with the Promoter that under the current rules a Proposal must contain both a Rule Change and a Directive. We will accept the Promoter's statement that the texts he had received did not meet this requirement as the Plantiff has not challenged it in his statement of the issues. ====================================================================== Evidence: I. Rule 1036 II. Rule 1023 (excerpt) I. Rule 1036 Rule 1036/2 (Mutable, MI=1) Making and Distributing Proposals Let there be an Officer called the Promotor. The Promotor shall receive a weekly salary of 3 Points. A Proposal by a Player shall be made by submitting it to the Promotor. As soon as possible after receiving the Proposal, the Promotor shall assign the Proposal a Number. Within seven (7) days of the receipt of the Proposal, and not later than any subsequently received Proposal, the Promotor shall distribute the numbered Proposal to all Players. At the same time e shall distribute any text not part of the proposal which is required to be submitted with it, but eir failure to do so shall not deprive the act of distributing the Proposal of the effects which it would otherwise have. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1530, Mar. 24 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1546, Apr. 14 1995 ---------------------------------------- II. Rule 1023 (excerpt) 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. ---------------------------------------- Andre