From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Thu Oct 5 09:27:04 1995 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA00871 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 09:27:01 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id GAA08699 for nomic-official-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 06:02:43 -0700 Received: from wing1.wing.rug.nl (wing1.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.1]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id GAA08672 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 06:02:34 -0700 Message-Id: <199510051302.GAA08672@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing1.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA04063; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 14:01:37 +0100 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: CFJ806: 4th assignment upon appeal... To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Thu, 5 Oct 95 14:01:36 MET Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO The number of defaults on this CFJ is record-breaking, I guess. We are at 7 now... ========================================================================== ASSIGNMENT UPON APPEAL CFJ 806 The Assessor may not choose whether Proposal 1694 passes or fails. ========================================================================== Judge: Kelly Judgement: TRUE Speaker: Steve pro-Speaker: Oerjan Judgement: TRUE CotC: Andre pro-CotC: Ian 2nd pro-CotC: Vanyel 3rd pro-CotC: elJefe Judgement: Justiciar: Chuck pro-Justiciar: Vlad 2nd pro-Just.: SugarWater 3rd pro-Just.: KoJen Judgement: Final Judgement: Caller: Steve Barred: none Eligible: Dave Bowen, elJefe, favor, KoJen, Michael, Swann, Zefram, wutold Not Eligible: Steve (Caller) Garth, Xanadu (On Hold) Andre, Chuck, Ian, Vlad, Vanyel, Sugarwater (defaulted) Kelly (original Judge) Oerjan (already judged appeal) Effects of this CFJ: Kelly gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement. Steve gains 3 Blots for defaulting on appelate Judgement. Andre gains 3 Blots for defaulting on appelate Judgement. Chuck gains 3 Blots for defaulting on appelate Judgement. Oerjan gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement. Ian gains 3 Blots for defaulting on appelate Judgement. Vlad gains 3 Blots for defaulting on appelate Judgement. Vanyel gains 3 Blots for defaulting on appelate Judgement. SugarWater gains 3 Blots for defaulting on appelate Judgement. ========================================================================== History: Called by Steve, Fri, 1 Sep 14:05 +1000 (EST) Assigned to Kelly, Fri, 1 Sep (time unknown) Judged TRUE by Kelly, Fri, 1 Sep 08:21 EST5 Appealed by Chuck, Mon, 4 Sep 17:37 -0500 Appealed by Andre, Wed, 6 Sep 10:37 METDST Appealed by Zefram, Wed, 6 Sep 10:42 +0100 (BST) Assigned to Steve as Speaker, date unknown Assigned to Andre as CotC, date unknown Assigned to Chuck as Justiciar, date unknown Defaulted by Steve, Andre and Chuck Assigned to Oerjan as pro-Speaker, 15 Sep, time unknown Assigned to Ian as pro-CotC, 15 Sep, time unknown Assigned to Vlad as pro-Justiciar, 15 Sep, time unknown Judged TRUE by Oerjan, Mon, 18 Sep 23:06 +0200 (METDST) Defaulted by Ian and Vlad Assigned to Vanyel as pro-CotC, 28 Sep, 11:38 MET Assigned to SugarWater as pro-Justiciar, 28 Sep, 11:38 MET Defaulted by Vanyel and SugarWater Assigned to elJefe as pro-CotC, 5 Oct, as of this message Assigned to KoJen as pro-Justiciar, 5 Oct, as of this message ========================================================================== Reasons and Arguments: I claim the Statement follows from the requirements of Rule 452, which take precedence over those of Rule 955. The facts of the case are: 1. The vote on Proposal 1694 is tied 9-9, and the Proposal has an Adoption Index of 1. So the Voting Index for Proposal 1694 exactly equals the Adoption Index of the Proposal. 2. Rule 955 states: If the Voting Index exactly equals the Adoption Index, then the Assessor shall choose whether the Proposal passes or fails. 3. Rule 452 states: The Assessor may not use knowledge of the current status of the vote on a Proposal which has come into eir possession because e is the Assessor, in an attempt to influence the result of the vote on that Proposal. The truth of the Statement rest on a simple claim: that if, As Assessor, I were to choose whether Proposal 1694 passes or fails, as required by Rule 955, I would be using "knowledge of the current status of the vote on a Proposal which has come into [my] possession because [I am] the Assessor, in attempt to influence the result of the vote on that Proposal." This is forbidden by Rule 452, and this Rule takes precedence over Rule 955. So I may not choose whether Proposal 1694 passes or fails. It makes no difference that I have published the Assessor's Report on Proposal 1694 in the Public Forum, and hence that I would have access to the information that the Proposal is tied even were I not the Assessor. For it remains true that, as a matter of fact, my actual knowledge of the tie was acquired because I am the Assessor, and not by other means. ========================================================================== Decision & Arguments Judge: I accept assignment as Judge of CFJ 806, and find this CFJ TRUE. Steve's argument is quite clear, and effectively undeniable. Clearly, choosing whether a Proposal passes or fails is an attempt to influence its result, and since Steve would be called upon to make this choice because of his knowledge of the status of the Vote on Pr.1694, doing so would violate R.452. R.452 clearly takes precedence over R.955, as neither Rule contains a precedence clause and the default numerical method therefore applies. If Steve had, say, escrowed his Choices before collecting any Votes, so that his choice was not made with any knowledge of the status of the Vote, then it would be legal (although in most cases eir Choice would not be used). I make no opinion on the matter of whether Pr.1694 passes, or whether another Assessor might be allowed to break the tie if Steve were to resign. Respectfully submitted this 1st day of September, 1995, Kelly Martin, Judge ========================================================================== Reasoning & Arguments Justices: I judge this TRUE. It is clear that no Assessor's decision on whether to pass or fail 1694 would have been done at all had the Proposal not been tied. (As evidenced by the fact that the Assessor made no such determination on other, non-tied Proposals.) Thus if the Assessor fails not to make such a decision on 1694 he has used his knowledge of the status of the Vote. Greetings, Oerjan. ========================================================================== Evidence: 1. Excerpt from Assessor's Report: 1685-1704, Sep 01, 1995. 2. Rule 452 3. Rule 955 4. Rule 1030 -----1. Excerpt from Assessor's Report: 1685-1704, Sep 01, 1995 1694 1 Kelly Revitalize Marks (Claim of Error Fee) TIES 9-9 (2) -----2. Rule 452 Rule 452/4 (Mutable, MI=1) No Electioneering by the Assessor The Assessor may not use knowledge of the current status of the vote on a Proposal which has come into eir possession because e is the Assessor, in an attempt to influence the result of the vote on that Proposal. If a Call for Judgment alleging a violation of this rule is found to be TRUE, the Assessor violating this rule shall gain three (3) Blots. Reporting this gain to the Tabulator is the responsibility of the Player who called the CFJ. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1446, Feb. 21 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 1534, Apr. 4 1995 Amended(4) by Proposal 1584, May 15 1995 -----3. Rule 955 Rule 955/2 (Mutable, MI=1) Votes Required to Adopt a Proposal When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the Votes which have been legally cast shall be counted by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting Index, as follows: the Proposal received no Votes opposed, and at least one Vote in favor, the Voting Index shall be Unanimity; if there are no Votes in favor, the Voting Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of Votes in favor divided by the number of Votes opposed. If the Voting Index is greater than the Adoption Index for the given Proposal, then that Proposal shall pass. If the Voting Index exactly equals the Adoption Index, then the Assessor shall choose whether the Proposal passes or fails. If the Voting Index is less than the Adoption Index, the Proposal shall fail. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994 Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995 -----4. Rule 1030 Rule 1030/2 (Mutable, MI=1) Precedence Between Rules with Equal MI's If two or more Rules with the same Mutability Indices conflict with one another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence. If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1527, Mar. 24 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995 ========================================================================== Steve Gardner | "Justice? You get justice in the next Dept. of Philosophy, Monash Uni. | world, in this world you get the law." gardner@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au | -- William Gaddis --