>From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Wed Nov 8 02:39:20 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 CAA25917 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 02:39:18 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id AAA29020 for nomic-official-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 00:33:07 -0800 Received: from wing3.wing.rug.nl (wing3.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.3]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id AAA29003 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 00:33:02 -0800 Message-Id: <199511080833.AAA29003@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing3.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA01041; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 09:32:19 +0100 >From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: CFJ 825 Judgement: FALSE To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Wed, 8 Nov 95 9:32:19 MET Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== ASSIGNMENT CFJ 101 Rule 101 should be interpreted such that, even if it is repealed, all players must still abide by the Rules. ====================================================================== Judge: Coco Judgement: FALSE Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Coco, Dave Bowen, favor, KoJen, Michael, Morendil, Oerjan, SaltWater, Steve, Vanyel, Zefram Not Eligible: Caller: elJefe Barred: On Hold: Effects: Coco gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement ====================================================================== History: Called by elJefe, 7 Nov 1995, 10:16 -0500 Assigned to Coco, 7 Nov 1995, as of this message Judged FALSE by Coco, Timestamp lost ====================================================================== Arguments: none Requested Injunction: I request that the Judge make an Injunction under Rule 789, requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule 101 with the Statement in the CFJ and the list of relevant Rules. ====================================================================== Reasoning Judge: If a player breaks a rule e may be judged and punished or e may get away with it. If he gets away with it rule 101 is moot, otherwise e has broken two rules, 101 for not abiding by the rules and whatever rule of the game he broke in the first place. ====================================================================== Relevant Rules: Rule 101. >From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Wed Nov 15 09:01:23 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 JAA03406 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 09:01:21 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id GAA08216 for nomic-official-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 06:54:11 -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 GAA08191 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 06:54:06 -0800 Message-Id: <199511151454.GAA08191@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing1.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA02441; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 15:52:43 +0100 >From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: CFJ 825 Final Judgement: FALSE To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Wed, 15 Nov 95 15:52:42 MET Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== FINAL JUDGEMENT CFJ 825 Rule 101 should be interpreted such that, even if it is repealed, all players must still abide by the Rules. ====================================================================== Judge: Coco Judgement: FALSE Speaker: Michael Judgement: FALSE CotC: Andre Judgement: FALSE Justiciar: Steve Judgement: FALSE Final Judgement:FALSE Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Coco, Dave Bowen, favor, KoJen, Michael, Morendil, Oerjan, SaltWater, Steve, Vanyel, Zefram Not Eligible: Caller: elJefe Barred: On Hold: Effects: Coco gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement Steve gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement Michael gains 3 Points for timely Judgement Andre gains 3 Points for timely Judgement ====================================================================== History: Called by elJefe, 7 Nov 1995, 10:16 -0500 Assigned to Coco, 7 Nov 1995, timestamp lost Judged FALSE by Coco, timestamp lost Appealed by favor, 8 Nov 1995, 09:24 EST Appealed by Oerjan, 8 Nov 1995, 15:39 +0100 (MET) Appealed by elJefe, 8 Nov 1995, 09:52 -0500 Assigned to Michael as Speaker, 8 Nov 1995, 16:07 MET Assigned to Andre as CotC, 8 Nov 1995, 16:07 MET Assigned to Steve as Justiciar, 8 Nov 1995, 16:07 MET Judged FALSE by Steve, 9 Nov 1995, 11:59 +1100 (EST) Judged FALSE by Michael, 15 Nov 1995, 12:50 GMT Judged FALSE by Andre, 15 Nov 1995, 14:38 MET ====================================================================== Arguments: none Requested Injunction: I request that the Judge make an Injunction under Rule 789, requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule 101 with the Statement in the CFJ and the list of relevant Rules. ====================================================================== Reasoning Judge: If a player breaks a rule e may be judged and punished or e may get away with it. If he gets away with it rule 101 is moot, otherwise e has broken two rules, 101 for not abiding by the rules and whatever rule of the game he broke in the first place. ====================================================================== Decision & Reasoning Speaker: Judgement: FALSE Argument: If R101 were repealed, then it would not be an interpretation of the by-then repealed rule that told us that we should all follow the rules, but rather the implicit meta-rule which we all agree to respect when we agree to play any game at all. Michael. ====================================================================== Decision & Reasoning CotC: I uphold the Judge's decision of FALSE. However, I do not agree with the Judge's reasoning (in fact, I don't understand the Judge's reasoning at all). I do agree with the Caller that, even if Rule 101 would be repealed, all players must still abide by the rules. However, I can't stretch the meaning of 'interpretation' so far, that this can be regarded as an interpretation of Rule 101, as it is clear that this is in no way whatsoever dependent on Rule 101 itself. Andre ====================================================================== Decision & Reasoning Justiciar: I uphold Judge Coco's Judgement of FALSE, although I give a completely different argument. For that Statement to be TRUE, it would have to be the case that even were Rule 101 repealed, Rule 101 should still be interpreted such that all players must still abide by the Rules. Of course that it impossible, for if we were to repeal Rule 101, although we should still most definitely have to keep obeying the Rules, it could not be due to any interpretation we might be making of a then-repealed Rule. So the Statement is FALSE. ====================================================================== Relevant Rules: Rule 101.