From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Mon Jul 17 03:53:39 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 DAA06040 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 03:42:58 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id BAA21935 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 01:39:46 -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 BAA21927 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 01:39:42 -0700 Message-Id: <199507170839.BAA21927@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing1.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA28604; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 10:40:28 +0200 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: CFJ 785: Judgement To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Mon, 17 Jul 95 10:40:26 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT CFJ 785 ("The first injunction issued by Judge Steve...") ====================================================================== Judge: JonRock SugarWater Judgement: [ Elysion: judged TRUE; this was not originally noted here ] Eligible: Chuck, Dave Bowen, elJefe, Ian, JonRock, KoJen, Michael, SugarWater, Swann, TAL, Vanyel, Xanadu Zefram Caller: Kelly Barred: Steve, Andre Not Eligible: Blob (either 1005 or not a Player) Coren (either On Hold & 1005 or Not a Player) Pascal (On Hold & 1005) Kelly (caller) Steve, Andre (barred) JonRock (defaulted) Effects: JonRock gains 3 Blots for defaulting Judgement and is not anymore eligible to be a Judge. SugarWater gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement Steve must submit a Formal Apology containing the words selected by the Judge. ====================================================================== History: Called by Kelly, June 29 1995, 01:50 EST5 Assigned to JonRock, July 5 1995, 08:21 UTC Defaulted by JonRock, July 12 1995, 08:21 UTC Re-assigned to SugarWater, July 13 1995, 08:44 UTC Judged TRUE by SugarWater, July 14 1995, 21:12 -0700 (PDT) ====================================================================== Statement: The first Injunction issued by Judge Steve in CFJ 777 is illegal. ====================================================================== Argument: Rule 663/1 only permits a Judge to make those Injunctions which are specifically authorized in the Rules. Steve's first Injunction, "Andre is penalized 10 points for his violation of Rule 1023" is not of a type permitted by the Rules. The Rules only authorize three sorts of Injunction, and the Injunction under question is not one of these three. Rule 665/0 permits an Injunction to retract an illegal move and the consequences thereof; however, this Injunction assessess a penalty mandated by the Rules, which is not a retraction of a move or an adjustment resulting from the retraction of said illegal move; if anything, the penalty is a consequence of the illegal move, and retracting the Move would also retract the penalty, not enforce it. Rule 789/1 permits an Injunction to annotate a Rule; clearly this Injunction does not seek this. Finally, Rule 908/3 permits a Judge to issue an Injunction which specifies a list of prescribed Rules which a Ninny must use in a Formal Apology mandated by that same Rule. Judge Steve's first Injunction is not of this sort either. Since the Injunction in question is not of a form permitted by the Rules, it is illegal and has no legal force. ====================================================================== Decision & Injunction: Judgement: TRUE Injunction: As per rule 908/3, Player Steve must submit a Formal Apology, containing the following Prescribed Words: chiaroscuro belletrist sabre-rattling curmudgeon angst ====================================================================== Reasoning: It is clear that the injunction in question is neither a Rule annotation nor a call for Formal Apology, and, therefore, does not fall under the auspices of rule 789/1 or 908/3. This requires that, for the Injunction to be legal, it must be of the type described in rule 665/0 -- namely, "specifying that the move is to be retracted, and any resulting adjustments to the game state". The injunction in question clearly does not mandate the retraction of a move. It is, therefore, illegal, and the Caller's statement is TRUE. ====================================================================== Evidence: I. Rule 663/1 II. Rule 665/0 III. Rule 789/1 IV. Rule 903/3 V. CFJ 777, incorporated by reference -------I. Rule 663/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Injunctions--General There shall be an entity known as an Injunction, which may accompany certain Judgements of TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDABLE as provided in the rules. An Injunction is a statement or series of statements specifying an action or actions which must take place. If a Judgement is is accompanied by an Injunction, that Injunction must be published with the Judgement. All players must abide by the Injunction beginning no later than 72 hours after its publication unless one of the following conditions then apply: - The Judgement which the Injunction accompanies is undergoing appeal, currently UNKNOWN as a consequence of the appeal process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but a proposal has been published which would overturn that decision if passed, and said proposal has not failed. - The validity of the Injunction itself is questioned by a pending CFJ. - A Judgement upholding the validity of the Injunction is undergoing appeal, currently UNKNOWN as a consequence of the appeal process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but a proposal has been published which would overturn that decision if passed, and said proposal has not failed. A Judgement may not be accompanied by an Injunction unless it is specifically permitted elsewhere in the rules. An Injunction must be completely consistent with all rules in effect at the time of issuance, and must be completely relevant to the matter addressed in the corresponding judgement. If any Player believes that an Injunction or any part of it does not meet the criteria for a valid Injunction, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If the resulting Judgement supports the contention that the criteria are not met, the Injunction shall be considered illegal and shall have no legal force. This rule takes precedence over all rules governing Injunctions. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995 -------II. Rule 665/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Injuction--Retracting an Illegal Move If a CFJ alleges that a specific Move is illegal, and the Judgement supports the allegation, the Judge may include with the Judgement an Injunction specifying that the move is to be retracted, and any resulting adjustments to the published game state. The adjustments to the game state must have been unambiguously specified within the CFJ, and these adjustments must only undo actions which were a direct or indirect result of that Move. -------III. Rule 789/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Injunctions on Interpretations of Rules When a player makes a CFJ alleging that a Rule should be interpreted in a certain way, e shall also submit a list of Rules relevant to that CFJ, which must include the Rule in question. If the statement is Judged TRUE, the Judge may include with the Judgement an Injuction requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule in question with the Statement in the CFJ and the list of relevant Rules. The annotation shall remain only until one of the Rules in the list of relevant Rules is changed in any way; or until a CFJ determines that the injunction no longer applies, as described below. While it remains, it shall guide the application of that Rule. If a Player believes that the circumstances which led to the Judgement no longer prevail and the annotation is therefore no longer applicable, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is Judged TRUE, the annotation shall be stricken from the rule set. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1396, Jan. 29 1995 -------IV. Rule 908/3 (Mutable, MI=1) Formal Apologies If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Ninny must submit to the Public Forum a Formal Apology within 72 hours of the publication of Judgement, unless that Judgement is successfully appealed within 72 hours. By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words, con-taining all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed) ex-plaining the Ninny's error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. A Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge's choice, and ordering that the Ninny's Formal Apology must include the Prescribed Words. If the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots. The Player who called the initial CFJ has the duty to report to the Tabulator any Blots gained through this rule. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1362, Dec. 13 1994 Amended(2) by Proposal 1382, Jan. 17 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 1500, Mar. 24 1995 ======================================================================- Andre