From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Tue Jun 27 03:21:49 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 DAA26303 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 03:14:01 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id BAA15785 for nomic-official-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 01:12:52 -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 BAA15704 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 01:12:35 -0700 Message-Id: <199506270812.BAA15704@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing1.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA00374; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 10:13:26 +0200 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: Judgement CFJ 783 To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Tue, 27 Jun 95 10:13:25 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO JUDGEMENT CFJ 783 ("Agora's Rules (in particular 993/1) are currently such...") ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Judge: Vanyel Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Dave Bowen, elJefe, Ian, JonRock, Kelly KoJen, Steve, SugarWater, Swann, TAL, Vanyel, Xanadu Zefram Caller: Michael Barred: none Not Eligible: Michael (caller) Blob (1005) Coren, Pascal (1005 & On Hold) Changes: Vanyel gains 3 Points for Timely Judgement ====================================================================== History: Called by Michael, June 23 1995, 10:29 BST Assigned to Vanyel, June 23 1995, 12:22 UTC Judged FALSE by Vanyel, June 27 1995, 01:29 -0500 (CDT) ====================================================================== Statement & Requested Injunction: Agora's rules (in particular 993/1) are currently such that Proposals containing Directives can only be adopted if there are no votes AGAINST the Proposal. As this is a rule interpretation judgement, I am required by 789/1 to include a list of relevant rules. In this case I believe the list to include 993/1 and 594/1. If the Judge should find the statement TRUE, they may choose to an injunction as per 789. ====================================================================== Argument: 594 states: 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. 993 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. Any Proposal for which this is not true is not properly made. Only if there were no AGAINST votes can a Proposal containing Directives pass. 1274/0 defines an ordering on Indices such that a Proposal with a Voting Index (see 955/2) of Unanimity automatically has a greater index than any possible Adoption Index. Otherwise it is impossible to determine the Voting Index required to adopt the Proposal. ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Reasoning: At first I was confused by the argument, but it seems to boil down to the fact that the Rules seem to provide a lot of lower bounds for AI, but nothing else. Yet, by calling in the quoted paragraph of 594, we see that the AI must be the "minimum...which would allow all the Rule Changes within the Proposal to take effect." In the case of a Proposal with Directives and no Rule Changes, this would be 1, as that is the minimum AI (1 being the lowest possible AI, also from 594) that would allow all the Rule Changes therein to take effect (there being none). Of course, if the Directives require a higher AI, that's fine too--but they do not absurdly require Unanimity. ====================================================================== Andre