>From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Thu Aug 3 04:01:48 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 DAA05917 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 1995 03:54:21 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id AAA22258 for nomic-official-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 1995 00:53:45 -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 AAA22252 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 1995 00:53:42 -0700 Received: from [144.92.180.44] by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id CAA11938; 8.6.9W/42; Thu, 3 Aug 1995 02:52:21 -0500 X-NUPop-Charset: English Date: Thu, 3 Aug 95 02:50:56 CDT >From: "Charles E. Carroll" Message-Id: <10265.ccarroll@students.wisc.edu> To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: CFJ 797: Judgement Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO Judgement of CFJ 797 Vlad receives 5 points for speedy Judgement. ============================================================ CFJ 797 Caller: Chuck Statement: SugarWater's first Injunction on CFJ 795, namely "As per Rule 665/0, I issue the following injunction: The Move to dissolve Reform Group is retracted. Reform Group still exists. The Game State will be adjusted appropriately," was illegal. Barred: SugarWater Requested Injunction: none Judge: Vlad Judgement: FALSE Injunction: none Effects reported by COTC (* indicates new for this report): *Vlad receives 5 points for speedy Judgement ============================================================ ============================================================ History: Called by Chuck Mon, 31 Jul 95 12:06:27 CDT Assigned to Vlad Mon, 31 Jul 95 12:37:46 CDT Judged FALSE by Vlad Wed, 2 Aug 1995 20:34:52 -0500 (CDT) Judgement published {as of this message} ============================================================ Arguments of Caller (Chuck): Rule 663 states "A Judgement may not be accompanied by an Injunction unless it is specifically permitted elsewhere in the Rules." This Injunction is not permitted elsewhere in the Rules. It clearly is not of the types permitted by Rule 789 or 908. It might seem to be of the type permitted by Rule 665, but Rule 665 requires for such an Injunction to be issued, "The adjustments to the game state must have been unambiguously specified within the CFJ..." Nowhere in the CFJ did favor (the caller) specify that the dissolution of Reform should be undone; thus the Injunction is in violation of the Rules. It might be argued that SugarWater issued not two Injunctions with CFJ 795, as he seemed to do, but only one. I argue that this is not the case, as in the message in which he sent his Judgement to the COTC, they are clearly labelled as "Injunctions." =========================================================== Arguments of Judge (Vlad): Oh what a tangled web we weave! With so much flak flying around what ought to be a simple issue, Judging even one small part is difficult. However, this issue is relatively easy. Rule 665 is the most important: > 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. SugarWater points out that this Rule seems to distinguish between "The Move" and "any resulting adjustments to the game state". The only question is, can a Move be retracted *without* adjustments to the game state? Rule 665 implies yes, by using the word "any". This would be the case, for instance, if various Officers did not record Reform as having dissolved;there would be nothing to undo. But kelly did publish score reports which are in error given the non- dissolution of reform. Logically, this is silly, but I can find no resonn why it would be illegal. Therefore, I Judge FALSE. Unofficially, I point out that this means that kelly does not have to correct her score reports (at least, not due to CFJ 795). ============================================================ Evidence provided by Caller (Chuck): 1. Rule 663 2. Rule 665 3. Rule 789 4. Rule 908 5. Excerpts of CFJ 795 6. Excerpts of SugarWater's Judgement message {full texts of 5 and 6 can be provided upon request} ======1. Rule 663 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 ======2. Rule 665 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. ======3. Rule 789 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 ======4. Rule 908 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. ======5. Excerpts of CFJ 795 CFJ 795 Caller: favor Statement: The dissolution of the Reform Group violated the Rules of Agora Nomic. Barred: TAL, Steve, elJefe Requested Injunction: none Judge: SugarWater Judgement: TRUE Injunctions: As per Rule 665/0, I issue the following injunction: The Move to dissolve Reform Group is retracted. Reform Group still exists. The Game State will be adjusted appropriately. The Ninny in this situation is the Vizier of Reform Group, as e executed the illegal dissolution. Under the authority of Rule 908/3, i prescribe the following words to be used in the Formal Apology: Philharmonic boustrophedonic supersonic gin tonic chronic [...] Arguments of Caller (favor): Rule 721 states that all Members of a Group must obey the Ordinances of that Group, so long as the Ordinances do not conflict with the Rules. Therefore if an action by any Members of a Group does not obey the Ordinances (modulo conflicts with the Rules), that action violates the Rules. At the time the Reform Group was dissolved (or, for any Platonists listening, when dissolution-looking messages were posted to the Public Forum), Ordinance 0 of the Reform Group Ordinances stated that the Purpose of the Group was to foster progressive change and dynamic growth within the Game of Agora Nomic. While such an abstract statement of principle cannot be held to govern every small particular action of the Members of the Group, the fact that the statement is included in the Ordinances, in the lowest-numbered spot, traditionally reserved for the highest-precedence and most-encompassing item, implies that it must have *some* impact on the Members of the Group, and must constrain at least *some* of their potential activities. There must, that is, be *some* action on the part of Members that would count as not obeying that Ordinance. The dissolution (or attempted dissolution) of the Group, coming as it did almost immediately after a change to the Ordinances which provided for the Group Treasury to be divided among the members upon the dissolution of the Group, constituted a breach of trust with those non-Member Players who had invested in Reform Group coins. More generally, it seriously eroded the confidence of the Agora public in Group currencies, to the point that the elimination of such currencies has been suggested. And even more broadly, it cast a pall on general mechanisms of trust within Agora Nomic. None of these effects can possibly be interpreted as fostering progressive change and dynamic growth within the Game; in fact, it is obvious that they have entirely the opposite effect, chilling any mechanisms of progress and growth that require trust, whether trust in Group currencies or in any other cooperative effort of Players. If any action could count as not obeying Ordinance 0 of the Reform Group Ordinances, this action must be deemed to so count as well. Therefore this action does not obey that Ordinance, and therefore it violates the Rules of Agora Nomic. Naughty, naughty! [...] ======6. Excerpts of SugarWater's Judgement message [...] Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 00:38:18 -0700 (PDT) >From: Adrian Brown X-Sender: gorgonne@becker1.u.washington.edu To: ccarroll@students.wisc.edu Subject: Judgement of cfj 795 [...] Injunctions. . . As per Rule 665/0, I issue the following injunction: The Move to dissolve Reform Group is retracted. Reform Group still exists. The Game State will be adjusted appropriately. The Ninny in this situation is the Vizier of Reform Group, as e executed the illegal dissolution. Under the authority of Rule 908/3, i prescribe the following words to be used in the Formal Apology: Philharmonic boustrophedonic supersonic gin tonic chronic ============================================================ End of CFJ 797 ============================================================