>From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Fri Jul 21 23:08:51 1995 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 XAA07618 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 23:06:48 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id KAA18693 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 10:09:11 -0700 Received: from audumla.students.wisc.edu (students.wisc.edu [144.92.104.66]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA18478 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 10:08:19 -0700 Received: from [144.92.180.142] by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id MAA14249; 8.6.9W/42; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 12:06:54 -0500 X-NUPop-Charset: English Date: Fri, 21 Jul 95 12:05:06 CST >From: "Charles E. Carroll" Message-Id: <43514.ccarroll@students.wisc.edu> To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: Judgement of CFJ 787 Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO Judgement of CFJ 787 elJefe receives 5 points for speedy Judgement. ============================================================ CFJ 787 Caller: Andre Statement: KoJen was in Violation of Rule 663 when he issued an Injunction with CFJ 781. Barred: KoJen, TAL Requested Injunction: That the annotation, asked for in said Injunction, will be removed if already added to the Ruleset, and will not be added to the Ruleset otherwise. Judge: elJefe Judgement: TRUE Injunction: none Effects reported by COTC (* indicates new to this message): JonRock gains 3 Blots *elJefe gains 5 points due to speedy Judgement ============================================================ ============================================================ History: Called by Andre, July 7 1995, 10:48 METDST Assigned to JonRock, July 7 1995, 8:56 UTC Defaulted by JonRock, July 14 1995, 8:56 UTC Assigned to elJefe Fri, 21 Jul 1995 00:49:09 -0500 Judged TRUE by elJefe Fri, 21 Jul 1995 12:47:06 -0400 Judgement published {as of this message} ============================================================ Arguments of Caller (Andre): Rule 663 says, among other things: 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. There are 3 Rules in the Ruleset which permit Injunctions, Rules 665, 789 and 908. Rules 908 and 665 do not apply, as they only apply if the CFJ alleges a move is illegal, or if it alleges that someone violated the Rules, which CFJ 781 did not. Furthermore the type of Injunction is mentioned only in Rule 789. However, Rule 789 clearly states that it can only be applied if the statement is Judged TRUE, which it wasn't. And so there is no Rule allowing the Injunction issued by KoJen, and so he was in Violation of Rule 663. ============================================================ Arguments of Judge (elJefe): Rule 663 says: A Judgement may not be accompanied by an Injunction unless it is specifically permitted elsewhere in the rules. The only Rule which permits an injunction to annotate a Rule, is Rule 789. Rule 789 only specifically permits such an injunction in the case where the CFJ was Ruled TRUE, which CFJ 781 was not. Earlier judgements have dealt with the question of illegal injunctions (CFJs 697, 714, 716, 724, 729, 735, 736, 773, and 785), and where ruled TRUE have often issued injunctions of their own for a Formal Apology from the person issuing the illegal injunction. In fact, CFJ 736 explicitly dealt with the question of whether the Game Move of making an injunction is can actually occur if the injunction is illegal, and held that such a move does occur, but without the effects it would have were it legal. Therefore I find that KoJen did accompany his Judgement of CFJ 781 with an Injunction, and that this particular Injunction is not specifically permitted by any Rule, and this was in violation of Rule 663. I do not issue any injunction with this Judgement. It is enough to note that no annotation has been made, and that the present statement is a statement "to the effect" that KoJen's Injunction does not meet the criteria for a valid Injunction, and that this judgement supports that contention. Therefore by Rule 663 it is illegal and has no legal force. ============================================================ Evidence provided by Caller (Andre): ---------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------- ============================================================ Evidence provided by Judge (elJefe): CFJ 781 (excerpt) ====================================================================== 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. ... ============================================================ End of CFJ 787 =============================================================