>From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Wed Nov 15 08:53:44 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 IAA03235 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 08:53:40 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id GAA06587 for nomic-official-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 06:48:14 -0800 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 GAA06444 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 06:47:43 -0800 Message-Id: <199511151447.GAA06444@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing1.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA00243; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 15:46:01 +0100 >From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: CFJ 820 Final Judgement: TRUE To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Wed, 15 Nov 95 15:46:00 MET Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO Wow! That was close! Two Judgements in the last hour when it was possible! ====================================================================== ASSIGNMENT CFJ 820 Rule 1533 should be interpreted to forbid any Group of Players from forming an Organization that does not belong to a Class defined in the Rules. ==================================================================== Judge: Dave Bowen Judgement: FALSE Speaker: Michael Judgement: TRUE CotC: Andre Judgement: TRUE Justiciar: Steve (must delegate eir duties) pro-Justiciar: Morendil Judgement: TRUE Final Judgement:TRUE Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Coco, Dave Bowen, Erick, favor, KoJen, Michael, Morendil, Oerjan, SugarWater, Vanyel, Vlad, Zefram Not Eligible: Caller: Swann Barred: Kelly, elJefe, Steve On Hold: Effects: Dave Bowen gains 3 Points for timely Judgement Morendil gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement Michael gains 3 Points for timely Judgement Andre gains 3 Points for timely Judgement Dave Bowen looses 3 Points for being overturned ====================================================================== History: Called by Swann, 31 Oct 1995, 01:58 -0500 Assigned to Dave B., 31 Oct 1995, 15:00 MET Judged FALSE by Dave B., 6 Nov 1995, 12:42 -0600 Appealed by Swann, 7 Nov 1995, 15:19 MET Appealed by Morendil, 8 Nov 1995, time unknown Appealed by Michael, 8 Nov 1995, 10:05 GMT Assigned to Michael as Speaker, 8 Nov 1995, 12:11 MET Assigned to Andre as CotC, 8 Nov 1995, 12:11 MET Assigned to Steve as Justiciar, 8 Nov 1995, 12:11 MET Delegated to Morendil as pro-Justiciar, 8 Nov 1995, 23:25 +1100 (EST) Judged TRUE by Morendil, 9 Nov 1995, 01:05 +0001 Judged TRUE by Michael, 15 Nov 1995, 10:22 GMT Judged TRUE by Andre, 15 Nov 1995, 11:42 MET ==================================================================== Requested Injunction: Rule 1533 shall be annotated with the interpretation given in this CFJ. ==================================================================== Argument: Rule 1533 defines the general procedure for creating an Organization, to illuminate the Statement in this CFJ, I will process the Rule as it will apply to a hypothetical Organization of an undefined Class. First off, 1533 Claims precedence over such an Entity, because, to quote. "This Rule defers when other Rules specifically claim precedence over its requirements. Otherwise, these requirements take precedence." An undefined Class of Organization has, by definition, no Rule specifically claiming such precedence, so 1533 does by dint of this clause. To from such an Undefined Organization then: "A set of Players, known as the Foundors, sends a message to the Notary containing the following information: i) The Class of the created Organization. ii) The Unique Name of the particular Organization being created. iii) The inital Compact for the proposed Orginization. iv) Any information required by Rules governing that specific Class of Organization." So far, so good... Then we start to have problems: "The Organization is created and is in force once the Notary receives the above information from all required Foundors." Who are "all required Foundors" for a non-existent Class? Rule 1533 does not define this term, and nowhere else does the Ruleset define it in the case of an undefined Organization. At best this clause would render the Organization's existence indeterminate (and this CFJ UNDECIDABLE) because there is no way to determine which Foundors are the "required" ones. However, Rule 1533 does elaborate on where the definition shall come from: "The set of required Foundors is specified within the Rules defining the particular Class of Organization, but they must be from within the Jurisdiction of the new Organization's Compact." Therefore the set of required Founders must be obtained from the Rules that define a Class of Organization. This implies that there can be no "required Foundors" for our hypothetical Organization, because there are no Rules defining its Class. IMO this, in itself, is enough to decide the Statement TRUE-- But, additionally, 1533 also restricts the Foundors to be from within the Jurisdiction of the Organization's Compact. Can our hypothetical Organization have a Jurisdiction at all? >From 1530: "A Compact can only have Jurisdiction over Players permitted to it by the Rules governing its Class of Organization." The word "only" here seems quite explicit to me. It is clear that 1530 forbids an Organization Jurisdiction over Players unless a Rule explicitly allows its Class to claim such Jurisdiction. I've heard claim that somehow 116 override this interpretation, but lets look at 116: "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a Rule is permitted and unregulated..." The Jurisdiction of our hypothetical Organization obviously falls into the class of things that are "regulated," therefore 116 does not come into play. 1530 offers a clear prohibition for any undefined Organization to have a Jurisdiction containing Players, and therefore such an Organization can not have any Foundors, and without Foundors, such an Organization can never be formed in the first place. ==================================================================== Decision & Reasoning Judge: Decision: FALSE Reasoning: I reject the Caller's claim the absence of any "required Founders" suffices to bar an Organization from forming. It seems to me quite possible that a class of Organization with no required Founders but only "optional Founders" could be permitted in the Rules as they currently exist. Since only the elements of "the set of required Founders" are required to be within the Jurisdiction of the Organization, the fact that the Jurisdiction is empty is not a bar to formation. I agree with the Caller that Rule 1530 constitutes regulation of Jurisdiction and hence that Rule 116 is not applicable in this case. ==================================================================== Decision & Reasoning CotC: I reverse the Judge's Judgement and judge TRUE. However, this is for reasons other than those given by the Caller and addressed by the Judge. As both the Caller and the Judge seem to agree, the set of Required Foundors for an Organization of a Class not defined in the Rules would be empty. However, this is, in my opinion, not enough reason to make such an Organization impossible. As the Caller claims, the Judge upholds, and is also found in the decision of CFJ 818, an Organization of undefined class will have no Players in its Jurisdiction. As, however, no Required Foundors are present, still all Required Foundors are in its Jurisdiction - The empty set is a subset of itself. So, it seems, I have followed the reasoning of the Judge. And indeed I have, till here. However, there are other Rules of importance: If it is legal for an Organization of undefined Class to be FORMED it should also be legal for it to EXIST. What are the main regulations (small r) about what an Organization needs - and has an Organization of undefined Class the possibility to follow them? The relevant Rule is Rule 1528, first Paragraph: Let there be a set of Nomic Entities known as Organizations. Every individual Organization has associated with it a body of text known as its Compact, a Player known as the Organization's Administrator, a set of Players who are within the Jurisdiction of the Organization's Compact, and a unique specific Name. So an Organization must have (1) a Compact, (2) an Administrator, (3) a Jurisdiction of the Compact, (4) a unique specific Name. As the Judgement on CFJ 818 showed, (3) is existent and necessarily empty for an Organization of undefined Class. (1) is, as far as I can see, no problem. When we get to (4) however, problems start. Rule 1533 says that an Organization is started when its Foundors send a certain message to the Notary. However, as it seems possible to have an empty set of Foundors, this could be done by noone sending it to the Notary. But the restriction that noone sends a message to the Notary is fulfilled trivially, so ANY possible Organization which has no Foundors DOES exist. But among those will be some (well, let's not be euphemistic infinitally many) with the same name! so this on itself would be enough to get a Judgement of UNDECIDABLE (not TRUE as, if we did not allow Organizations of undefined Class, there would be no problem with their existance, but if we do allow them, there are). I would almost say I am therefore lucky that there's (2) also, which makes 'TRUE' the right Judgement. This is because Rule 1531 says, among other things: The Administrator of an Organization must come from within the Jurisdiction of the Organization's Compact unless otherwise specified by the Rules governing its Class. So Rule 1528 says an Organization must have an Administrator, Rule 1531 says it must be from within the Jurisdiction of the Compact, unless otherwise specified by the Rules governing its Class. So an Organization of undefined Class must have at least one Player in its Jurisdiction, namely its Administrator. However, as the Judgement on CFJ 818 showed, an Organization of undefined Class cannot have anyone in its Jurisdiction. Reductio ad absurdum, ergo an Organization of undefined Class cannot exist. Quod erat demonstrandum. As the connection between my reasoning and Rule 1533 is only secondary I will not grant the Injunction. CotC, Andre ====================================================================== Decision & Reasoning Speaker: Judgement: TRUE Argument: The statement is true because when a new Organisation is to be created R1533 tells us that the application for the Organisation's creation must contain the Class of the created Organisation. It is my claim that it is impossible for any Player to specify a Class which is not defined within the rules. Before investigating this further however, it is necessary to define what it is to be a Class. One argument has it that an Organisation's Class is simply a set (of Organisations) to which it happens to belong. If this were so, one would not necessarily need to name a Class that was specifically defined in the rules, one could merely define the relevant set. This argument has two flaws however, one minor and one that is ultimately sufficient to sink it entirely. The minor problem with this argument is that it is clear that Classes are not just any subset of the universal set of possible Organisations. The language in the rules makes it clear that Classes partition the universal set, so that any one Organisation only has one class. Thus the original claim that a Class is any subset is clearly too strong. However, if one allows the argument that a Class is any equivalence class over Organisations, then one gets an argument that is quite similar to the original and is not subject to the original flaw. In my opinion, this is still a very dubious argument because we do not have any way of knowing that every equivalence class is necessarily a Class, though the reverse does hold. Therefore, it seems dubious to assume that the mere act of specifying an equivalence class necessarily corresponds to specifying an Organisation's Class. The rules certainly don't explicitly support this view. However, it is still possible to show that the creation of Organisations of undefined Class should be forbidden, even when conceding this strong claim. Let us continue then. To create an Organisation, it is necessary to specify the Class to which it belongs. In the absence of something in the ruleset specifically defining the Class desired, one must specify the partition of the universal set of possible Organisations to which the new Organisation belongs. In the example of the purported MouseTrap the class specified was 'non-Group non-Contract non-Contest class'. Now this is a perfectly valid logical specification of a subset of all possible Organisations, but there remains an obligation to show that this set does in fact contain the supposed Organisation in question; for a start it needs to be shown that the set (and remember this set ranges over all possible Organisations) is not empty. To show that a set is not empty, one need only demonstrate the existence of a member of this set, but in this situation, this could only be done under the assumption that the purported Organisation was actually an Organisation, but given that this is what the argument is trying to establish, we see that there is a circularity. In summary, the essence of my argument is that the creation of Organisations of Classes not defined in the rules is forbidden because no attempt to create such a Organisation can satisfy R1533's requirement that the application to create the Organisation should specify the Class to which the Organisation is to belong. Judgement ends Michael. ==================================================================== Decision & Reasoning : pro-Justiciar Decision: TRUE This is another special case following from my Judgement of CFJ 818 and the interpretation of Rule 116 that I set forth in it. The set of required Foundors is specified in 'the Rules defining the particular Class of Organization', that is, Rule 116. Rule 116 does not _specify_ a set of Foundors, therefore it is impossible to submit such a set. Invoking Rule 116 recursively with the argument that if no Foundors are required, then all Foundors are optional, is prohibited by my interpretation of Rule 116. ====================================================================== Evidence: * Rule 1533/0 * Rule 1530/0 * Rule 116/0 * Rule 1528/0 (added by CotC) * Rule 1531/0 (added by CotC) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1533/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Creation of Organizations, and Their Compacts Organizations (and, simultaneously, their initial Compacts) are created in the following manner: A set of Players, known as the Foundors, sends a message to the Notary containing the following information: i) The Class of the created Organization. ii) The Unique Name of the particular Organization being created. iii) The inital Compact for the proposed Orginization. iv) Any information required by Rules governing that specific Class of Organization. The Organization is created and is in force once the Notary receives the above information from all required Foundors. The set of required Foundors is specified within the Rules defining the particular Class of Organization, but they must be from within the Jurisdiction of the new Organization's Compact. Additional restrictions on the set of Foundors can be made by those Rules. This Rule defers when other Rules specifically claim precedence over its requirements. Otherwise, these requirements take precedence. History: Created by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1530/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Compacts: Jurisdiction The Jurisdiction of an Organization's Compact is a subset of the set of all Players. A Compact has no force to require, or oblige, anything of Players who are not within its Jurisdiction. (This does not absolve any Players of duties required of them by the Rules.) Within its Jurisdiction, a Compact's ability to dictate Players' activity is limited to the extent permitted by the Rules. A Compact can only have Jurisdiction over Players permitted to it by the Rules governing its Class of Organization. No Compact may have effect prior to its Creation, nor may it have effect subsequent to its dissolution. This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule governing Compacts. History: Created by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 116/0 (Semimutable, MI=3) Permissibility of the Unprohibited Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a Rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the Rules, which is permitted only when a Rule or set of Rules explicitly or implicitly permits it. History: Initial Immutable Rule 116, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1483, Mar. 15 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 1528/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Organizations Let there be a set of Nomic Entities known as Organizations. Every individual Organization has associated with it a body of text known as its Compact, a Player known as the Organization's Administrator, a set of Players who are within the Jurisdiction of the Organization's Compact, and a unique specific Name. In addition, any Organization which possesses Treasuries has a Player who is Executor of the Organization. An Organization only possess Treasuries if the Rules governing that Orginization specify so. History: Created by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 1531/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Administrators and Their Duties The Administrator of an Organization must keep an accurate copy of its Compact and an accurate list of the Players within the Compact's Jurisdiction. E must record any and all changes to the Compact, and must, As Soon As Possible after such changes, distribute an up-to-date copy of the Compact to every Player within the Compact's Jurisdiction. E must also notify the Notary whenever the Executor (if any) of eir Organization Changes. When the Administrator of an Organization changes, the new Administrator must inform the Notary of this change. These notifications must be made As Soon As Possible. The Administrator of an Organization must come from within the Jurisdiction of the Organization's Compact unless otherwise specified by the Rules governing its Class. History: Created by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995