>From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Thu Aug 3 13:16:48 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 NAA08198 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 1995 13:13:45 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id JAA04404 for nomic-official-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 1995 09:29:59 -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 JAA04383 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 1995 09:29:54 -0700 Received: from [144.92.180.198] by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id LAA25923; 8.6.9W/42; Thu, 3 Aug 1995 11:28:45 -0500 X-NUPop-Charset: English Date: Thu, 3 Aug 95 11:27:17 CDT >From: "Charles E. Carroll" Message-Id: <41248.ccarroll@students.wisc.edu> To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: CFJ 798: Judgement Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO Judgement of CFJ 798 KoJen receives 5 points for speedy Judgement. ============================================================ CFJ 798 Caller: Chuck Statement: SugarWater's second Injunction on CFJ 795, namely "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," was illegal. Barred: SugarWater Requested Injunction: none Judge: KoJen Judgement: TRUE Injunction: SugarWater shall make a formal apology using these prescribed words: study, understand, restraint, error, headstrong, care, violate, assimilate, comprehend, conservative Effects reported by COTC (* indicates new for this report): *KoJen receives 5 points for speedy Judgement ============================================================ ============================================================ History: Called by Chuck Mon, 31 Jul 95 12:08:03 CDT Assigned to KoJen Mon, 31 Jul 95 12:39:22 CDT Judged TRUE by KoJen Thu, 3 Aug 95 12:06:19 -0400 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 665 or 789. It might seem to be of the type allowed by Rule 908, but Rule 908 only applies in the case of "a Call for Judgement [which] 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..." CFJ 795 contains no such allegation; it merely alleges that the dissolution of Reform was in violation of the Rules. It does not allege that any specific Player acted or failed to act 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 (KoJen): Rule 908 applies when a Player is found to have violated a Rule. This was not the finding of CFJ 795. This CFJ found that the dissolution of Reform was illegal. In other words, it did not occur. The dissolution (or attempted dissolution) did not occur as a result of the Vizier's actions. The Vizier simply reports the dissolution (Rule 1397). Since no other Rule exists to permit a Judge to issue an injunction such as what SugarWater attempted, it is clear that SugarWater's injunction was illegal. ============================================================ 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 [...] ======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 798 ============================================================