From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Wed Jul 5 05:52:08 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 FAA07111 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 1995 05:41:46 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id DAA03652 for nomic-official-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 1995 03:41:07 -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 DAA03632 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 1995 03:40:58 -0700 Message-Id: <199507051040.DAA03632@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing4.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA00675; Wed, 5 Jul 1995 12:41:04 +0200 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: CFJ 786: Judgement To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Wed, 5 Jul 95 12:41:03 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ========================================================================== JUDGEMENT CFJ 786 ("The rules ought to be interpreted in such a way...") ========================================================================== Judge: Troublemaker At Large Judgement: TRUE Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Dave Bowen, Ian, JonRock, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, SugarWater, Swann, Troublemaker At Large, Vanyel Zefram Caller: elJefe Barred: none Not Eligible: elJefe (Caller) Coren (1005) Pascal, Steve, Xanadu (On Hold) Effects: TAL gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement ========================================================================== History: Called by elJefe, July 3 1995, 21:21 +0200 Assigned to TAL, July 4 1995, 09:48 UTC Judged TRUE by TAL, July 5 1995, 10:15 +0200 ========================================================================== Statement: The rules ought to be interpreted in such a way that the submission distributed as Proposal 1614 is not a properly made Proposal, and should not be voted upon. ========================================================================== Argument: I personally would prefer if the Rules allowed 1614 to be voted upon and not take effect; however, the Rules are not currently written this way, and this is the only way to prevent the Proposal from being effective. I am also not specifically claiming the KoJen broke the Rules, or that a particular report is in error. This is just an interpretation CFJ. Rule 1003 forbids Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a player into voting against eir conscience. The commentary accompanying the Proposal makes this intent explicit. Such a proposal is considered not to be "proposed in the proper way". (Rule 1003) Rule 106 only requires a vote for "Proposals made in the proper way." Further, Rule 1003 claims precedence over other rules which would otherwise allow such a shameful proposal to be voted upon, such as Rule 683, 957, etc. The question arises as to the possible effects on Rule 1003 of its infection by the Nomic Virus. This caused the last two paragraphs to read ... This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which would otherwise allow such a shameful Proposal to be voted on. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. (omitting the meaningless "(*Was: 822*)" designation). It is never relevant in Agora Nomic to ask about the author's intent, and it is even less relevant here, if possible, since the "author" of the latest amendment is the Virus. Consistent with this stance, I would ask the Judge to ignore the fact that the proposal was partly Virus-generated, and interpret the words as they are written, as if a Player had written the proposal this way. This allows us to try to make sense of the Rule as an organic entity. There are two ways to interpret the last paragraph: (1.) it contradicts the previous paragraph, and cancels its effect; or (2.) it refers to rules not covered by the penultimate paragraph (mentioning "other Rules" as it does) and therefore leaves 1003's claimed precedence intact. It is an ancient rule of legal construction that if there are two possible ways to interpret a rule, the preferred interpretation is the one which is not internally contradictory. Under (1.), the Rule contradicts itself and would cause the second- last paragraph to be meaningless. This interpretation would give the rule the same effect no matter what precedence claim that paragraph made. Under (2.), the penultimate paragraph explicitly give the rule precedence as before. The last paragraph may now cause it to defer to some rules where it had precedence by virtue of its number, but not where the previous paragraph claims precedence. In this interpretation, each paragraph of the Rule has meaning. Interpretation (2.) should be preferred, Rule 1003 should be held to have precedence as it did before infection, and "Proposal 1614" should be considered not properly made, and should not be voted upon. ========================================================================== Decision & Reasoning Judge: Judgment: TRUE Arguments: There are four Rules that define when a Proposal is not "properly made" Let us see whether they apply to `the submission distributed as Proposal 1614' (P1614 for short). 1) Rule 993 states a condition relevant only to Directives. No problem for P1614. 2) Rule 597 obliges Proposals to be headed by a Title. P1614 has one. 3) Rule 1003 is the Rule upon which both ElJefe and Steve rely when they argue against or for the legality of P1614. Its first sentence states: "Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player into voting against eir conscience are disallowed." This seems very clear to me: P1614's obvious intent is to coerce Players and 1003 forbids such Proposals explicitly. Hence P1614 is *not* a Proposal. (Apparently it is a bit of text send by Steve via the Promotor to the Agora community to amuse everybody.) The fact that the second and third paragraph are contradictory, does not modify my argument, as there is no Rule that obliges the Promotor to do something with non-Proposals. Take for instance 1036: it states that a *Proposal* shall be numbered and distributed. But P1614 is not a Proposal. Or take 404: "As long as a Proposal satisfies all requirements in place at the time of its making for the proper making of Proposals, the act of making such a Proposal is legal regardless of its content." No doubt....but again, not applying to P1614. (Note: and what if P1614 was a Proposal? Well, I haven't looked at it in detail, but the logical contradiction in 1003 would make a case for a legitimate UNDECIDED, if not for 783.) 4) The fourth Rule dealing with "proper" is 783. The relevant part is: "Proposals which contain clauses awarding, trading, penalizing, or otherwise changing the account of any Nomic Entity's holding of Points or any other form of Currency based on the Vote they cast on that Proposal are invalid, shall not be deemed to have been properly submitted, and shall not be Voted upon." This is clear too. Even if P1614 was a Proposal, the nature of its threat "All and only those Players who did not [...] are hereby deregistered as of the Creation of this Rule." is in violation of Rule 783. After all, upon deregistration, the Point, Mark, EV and other Currency holdings of these Players are put to zero, which seems quite penalizing to this Judge. Therefore my Judgment is TRUE. ==== Greetings, TAL ========================================================================== Evidence Rule 1003/1 (Mutable, MI=1) No Coercive Proposals Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player into voting against eir conscience are disallowed. Such a proposal is considered not to be "proposed in the proper way". This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which would otherwise allow such a shameful Proposal to be voted on. (*Was: 822*) This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. History: ... Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jun. 4 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 106/0 (Semimutable, MI=3) Adopting Proposals All Proposals made in the proper way shall be voted upon. A Proposal shall be adopted if and only if it receives the required number of votes and if Quorum is achieved. History: Initial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994 Amended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994 Renumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994 Infected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May. 7 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 683/3 (Mutable, MI=1) Legal Votes Players may cast of a Vote of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN for any Proposal within its prescribed Voting Period. In order to be legally cast, the Vote must be received by the Counting Assessor or posted to the Public Forum during the prescribed Voting Period. The Assessor will reveal the Votes cast by each Player only after the prescribed Voting Period has ended. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1473, Mar. 8 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 957/0 (Mutable, MI=1) YES=FOR; NO=AGAINST; Anything else=ABSTAIN Votes of FOR or YES are to be considered Votes in favor of a Proposal. Votes of AGAINST or NO are to be considered Votes opposed to a Proposal. Other Votes are not to be considered as in favor or opposition. (*Was: 462*) ---------------------------------------- Proposal 1614 (Steve) AI=1 A Coercive Proposal (!) Create a Rule with the following text: All and only those Players who did not vote FOR the Proposal whose adoption resulted in the Creation of this Rule, and who did not vote FOR any Proposal to award the Patent Title of the Order of Machiavelli to Player JonRock, are hereby deregistered as of the Creation of this Rule. They may not reregister for a period of ten days. This Rule then automatically repeals itself. #### Comments: It is my view that the penalty threatened by the proposal is coercive within the meaning of Rule 1003. The proposal attempts to coerce Players to vote FOR JonRock's forthcoming attempt to achieve the Machiavelli Title. This proposal of JonRock's will be distributed in the next Promotor's Report. With it will also be my own attempt to have this Title awarded to myself. I choose to attempt to coerce support for JonRock rather than myself because I want it to be clear than I am not trying to exploit the Viral infection of Rule 1003 for personal gain. However, the infection of Rule 1003 presents us with a quite rare case of explicit self- contradiction in a Rule, and I could not pass up such an opportunity to explore the consequences of this. I want to stress that JonRock knows nothing more of this attempt than any of you. So, to the core question: can Promotor KoJen legally distribute this Proposal? Can he legally refrain from doing so? Rules 1036 and 109 require him to assign text submitted to him as a proposal a Number, and to distributer this text within 7 days. Prior to its infection, Rule 1003 took precedence over these Rules and would have prevented a Proposal like the above from being distributed. Post-infection, the situation is not so clear, since Rule 1003 now also explcitly defers to Rule 1036 and 109. It is my hope that Promotor KoJen will distribute this Proposal so that we may see what ensues. It seems certain, and indeed it is intended, that the legality of distributing this Proposal will end up being considered by the courts. I think that will be fun for everyone. [distributed Fri, 30 Jun 95 15:21:02 -0400, by KoJen] ====================================================================== References, added by Judge: Rule 404/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Legality of Proposals As long as a Proposal satisfies all requirements in place at the time of its making for the proper making of Proposals, the act of making such a Proposal is legal regardless of its content. It is legal to propose a Rule which conflicts with other Rules or with itself, which is paradoxical, or which cannot be applied. Rule 597/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Titles for Proposals Every Proposal shall be headed with a Title. This Title shall not actually be a part of the Proposal itself and therefore shall not become a part of any Rule Enacted or Amended by that Proposal. If a Proposal is not headed with a Title, then the proposal is not properly submitted, and shall not be Voted upon. Rule 783/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Illegality of Bonus Clauses Proposals which contain clauses awarding, trading, penalizing, or otherwise changing the account of any Nomic Entity's holding of Points or any other form of Currency based on the Vote they cast on that Proposal are invalid, shall not be deemed to have been properly submitted, and shall not be Voted upon. (*Was: 326*) 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. 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. 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. ========================================================================== Andre