>From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Wed Sep 13 02:48:39 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 CAA01327 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 1995 02:48:36 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id AAA26609 for nomic-official-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 1995 00:45:13 -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 AAA26601 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 1995 00:45:09 -0700 Message-Id: <199509130745.AAA26601@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing1.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA00806; Wed, 13 Sep 1995 09:43:13 +0200 >From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: CFJ 807: Judgement To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 9:43:13 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ========================================================================== JUDGEMENT CFJ 807 Statement: The Assessor may choose whether Proposal 1694 passes or fails, as long as the Assessor is not Steve. ========================================================================== Judge: Swann (resigned) favor Judgement: TRUE Eligible: Andre, Dave Bowen, favor, Ian, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Oerjan, Vanyel, Vlad, Xanadu, Zefram, elJefe Not Eligible: Caller: Steve Barred: Chuck, SugarWater On Hold: Brian, Garth, JonRock Declined: Swann Effects: Swann looses 2 Points for declining, one of which goes to Andre. ========================================================================== History: Called by Steve, Tue, 5 Sep, 13:25 +1000 Assigned to Swann, date unknown Declined by Swann, Sun, 10 Sep 1995, 23:40 -0400 Assigned to favor, Mon, 11 Sep 1995, 10:13 METDST Judged TRUE by favor, Mon 11 Sep 1995, 16:40 EDT ========================================================================== Reasons and Arguments: The Judgement of CFJ 806 establishes that Steve, as Assessor, cannot choose whether Proposal 1694 passes or fails as required by Rule 955, because for Steve to do so would violate Rule 452. However, Rule 452 restricts only the use of "knowledge...which has come into eir possession because [a Player] is the Assessor". The only Player for whom it is true that knowledge that Proposal 1694 is tied has come into eir possession because e is the Assessor is Steve. All other Players have come into possession of this knowledge because Steve has published an Assessor's Report in the Public Forum. Hence the only Player for whom there is a conflict between Rules 955 and 452 is Steve. If a Player other than Steve were the Assessor, there would be no conflict for that Player between the requirements of Rule 955 and 452 in the case of Proposal 1694. Such a Player would be permitted to choose whether Proposal 1694 passes or fails, provided that Rule 955 does not require that the Player who, as Assessor, chooses whether a tied Proposal passes or fails, is the same Player who was Assessor at the conclusion of the Voting Period of the Proposal in question. Rule 955 makes no such requirement. So a Player, other than Steve, who is the Assessor is permitted to choose whether Proposal 1694 passes or fails. ========================================================================== Decision & Argument Judge: Judgement: TRUE Arguments: There are a number of ways to interpret the Statement in this Call for Judgement. In the most literal reading, the Statement says "If Steve is not the Assessor, then...". But since of course Steve *is* the Assessor (and, more to the point, was when this CFJ was called), the Statement has the form "If , then...", and of course all such statements are true, if interpreted in the most straightforward Boolean manner. So, TRUE. On the other hand, it would be silly to CFJ on a trivially true statement, and internal evidence in the arguments suggests that we interpret this as a counterfactual conditional, "if it were the case that Steve weren't the Assessor, then...". If we interpret this to mean "there is no possible world in which Steve is not Assessor, but not...", then we'd get FALSE (since, for instance, it might be the case that Steve is not the Assessor, but the Rules don't allow the Assessor to choose whether 1694 passes or fails, because the alternate Agora didn't have this rather odd Assessor- choice rule). But hardly anyone thinks that counter- factual conditionals ought to be interpreted this way; a more respectable interpretation of this is something like "in the most nearby possible worlds in which Steve is not the Assessor, it is the case that...". Fortunately, the statement comes out TRUE under this interpretation, at least under a reasonably intuitive metric on possible worlds, for exactly the reasons that Steve gives; if everything were the same except that Steve were not Assessor, whoever *was* Assessor would be allowed by 955, and not forbidden by 452, to choose whether 1694 passes or fails. So, TRUE. Note that I will be silent here on the issue of whether or not 452 actually prevents Steve, as Assessor, from choosing whether 1694 passes or fails. Cogent cases could be made either way: it might be argued that the choosing under 955 does not count as "influencing the result of the vote" for the purposes of 452 (since the vote will still have been a tie, however Steve were to choose); on the other hand, by Steve's choosing, he can certainly determine whether the proposal passes or fails, and that passing or failing is, albeit indirectly, a result of the vote (i.e. a different pattern of votes might have led to a different passing/failing). It might also be argued that the "because" in 452 does not hold, and so 452 does not forbid Steve from choosing, because he would have had the information anyway, even were he not assessor (this depends on your theory of "because"). Glad I don't have to decide that one! *8) I believe 806 on the subject has been appealed... | favor | ========================================================================== Evidence: 1. Judgement of CFJ 806. 2. Rule 452. 3. Rule 955. -----1. Judgement of CFJ 806. Andre Engels writes: > >========================================================================== > ASSIGNMENT CFJ 806 > >The Assessor may not choose whether Proposal 1694 passes or fails. >========================================================================== > >Judge: Kelly >Judgement: TRUE >Caller: Steve > >========================================================================== > >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 >========================================================================== -----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 ==========================================================================