From owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Wed Jan 24 05:46:22 1996 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 FAA09578 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 05:46:21 -0600 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA09638; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 03:42:36 -0800 Received: by desiree.teleport.com (bulk_mailer v1.3); Wed, 24 Jan 1996 03:42:35 -0800 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id DAA09625 for nomic-official-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 03:42:34 -0800 Received: from wing2.wing.rug.nl (wing2.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.2]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA09618 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 03:42:30 -0800 Message-Id: <199601241142.DAA09618@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing2.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA18542; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 12:42:13 +0100 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: CFJ 835 Final Judgement: TRUE To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Wed, 24 Jan 96 12:42:13 MET Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO The texts with (M) before it are only true in the Gamestate in which Morendil became Speaker in December The texts with (S) before it are only true in the Gamestate in which Swann became Speaker in December ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT UPON APPEAL CFJ 835 "Rule 1023 shall be interpreted, such that..." ====================================================================== Judge: Dave Bowen Judgement: FALSE Speaker: Ian (defaulted) pro-Speaker: Michael (defaulted) Wes (defaulted) (M) Morendil (defaulted) (S) Chuck (delegated) favor Judgement: TRUE CotC: Andre Judgement: FALSE Justiciar: Steve Judgement: TRUE Final Judgement:TRUE Eligible: favor, Murphy, Vanyel, Vlad (S) Blob, Chuck, Morendil? Not Eligible: Caller: Kelly Barred: On Hold: 1005: KoJen, Michael, Pascal, Swann (M) Blob, Chuck Judged already: Dave Bowen, Andre, Steve Defaulted: (M) Morendil, Wes Effects: Dave Bowen gains 3 Points for timely Judgement Steve gains 3 Points for timely Judgement Andre gains 3 Points for timely Judgement Ian gains 3 Blots for defaulting on appelate Judgement Ian is not eligible to act as a Judge Michael gains 3 Blots for defaulting on appelate Judgement Michael is not eligible to act as a Judge Wes gains 3 Blots for defaulting on appelate Judgement Wes is not eligible to act as a Judge (M) Morendil gains 3 Blots for defaulting (M) Morendil is not anymore eligible as a Judge favor gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement ====================================================================== History: Called by Kelly, 17 November 1995, 15:14 MET Assigned to Dave Bowen, 21 November 1995, 11:57 MET Judged FALSE by Dave Bowen, 27 November 1995, 22:30 -0600 Appealed by Kelly, timestamp lost Appealed by Steve, 29 November 1995, 06:01 -0800 Appealed by Andre, 1 December 1995, 12:29 MET Assigned to Ian as Speaker, 8 December 1995, 14:55 MET Assigned to Andre as CotC, 8 December 1995, 14:55 MET Assigned to Steve as Justiciar, 8 December 1995, 14:55 MET Judged TRUE by Steve, 14 December 1995, 19:41 +1100 (EST) Judged TRUE by Andre, 15 December 1995, 14:43 MET (Wow! That was close!) Defaulted by Ian, 15 December 1995, 14:55 MET Assigned to Michael as pro-Speaker, 15 December 1995, timestamp lost Defaulted by Michael, 22 December 1995, time unknown Assigned to Wes as pro-Speaker, 4 January 1996, 01:02 +0001 Defaulted by Wes, 11 January 1996, 01:02 +0001 (M) Assigned to Morendil as pro-Speaker, 15 January 1996, 13:42 +0100 (M) Defaulted by Morendil, 22 January 1996, 13:42 +0100 (S) Assigned to Chuck as pro-Speaker, 23 January 1996, 12:49 MET (M) Assigned to favor as pro-Speaker, 23 January 1996, 12:49 MET (S) Delegated by Chuck to favor, 23 January 1996, 07:43 CST Judged TRUE by favor, 23 January 1996, 12:05 EST ====================================================================== Full Statement: Rule 1023 shall be interpreted, such that for each action which a Player is obliged to perform, but fails to perform, within the time required by this Rule is a separate and distinct Crime, and furthermore each action performed by a Player in an order which is inconsistent with the requirements of this Rule is itself a Crime separate and distinct from each other such action, and from any Crime for failure to meet the time requirement. Requested Injunction: i bar nobody from this CFJ, and i request than an Injunction be issued to annotate Rule 1023 with this Statement. the list of Relevant Rules is Rule 1023. ====================================================================== Argument: it has never been well-established what it means to violate this Rule. i am making this CFJ to try to establish a consistent judicial precedent for the proper interpretation of Rule 1023. i will not complicate the example by dealing with 1023's parallel duty tracks; obviously, duties on different duty tracks are independent of each other and can be performed in any order. 1023 gives every Player one duty track for each Office e holds, plus one more for duties not pertaining to any Office, so Officers have more leeway in ordering their Moves. all times in the following illustration are measured in days, for simplicity. let us presume, throughout, that at time T=0 a Player who holds no Offices incurs a duty D0, at time T=1 e incurs another duty D1, and at time T=5 e incurs a third duty D2. let us now examine several possible orderings and timings of fulfillment of these duties, and the Crimes which would arise from these various orders. of course, the "desired" order is to perform D0 no later than T=7, D1 no later than T=8, and D2 no later than T=12, and such that D0 is performed before D1 and D1 performed before D2. first, let us approach order: if the duties are discharged in the order D0,D1,D2, there are no Crimes for ordering. if they are discharged in the order D1,D0,D2 the order D0,D2,D1, or the order D2,D0,D1, there is one Crime (because there is only a single action taken out of order). if they are discharged in the order D2,D1,D0 or the order D1,D2,D0 then there are two Crimes, because D0 was unfulfilled at the time that both D1 and D2 were performed. each Violation consists of performing a properly subsequent duty while one or more properly precedent duties remain unfulfilled. the case of timing is simpler: the failure to perform a duty before the latest time permitted (that is, seven days, except when another Rule specifies, in which case this Rule has no bearing) is a Crime. so, in the above example, if the Player does not fulfill duty D0 before time T=7, e commits a Crime, regardless of when e performed duties D1 or D2. ====================================================================== Decision & Reasoning Judge: Decision: FALSE Reasoning: My interpretation of this rule is that a crime is committed for each out-of-order action. Thus, using the Caller's example an order of D2, D0, D1 would be two crimes, not the one crime the Caller claims, since both D0 and D1 are required to precede D2. Similarly, an order of D2, D1, D0 would be three crimes, not the two Caller claims; the two crimes for D2 preceding D0 and D1 plus one for D1 preceding D0. ====================================================================== Decision & Reasoning Justiciar: In the matter of the Appeal of CFJ 835, I overturn Bowen's Judgement of FALSE and Judge the Statement TRUE. This has been a most curious CFJ! In fact I accept something very close, perhaps even identical, to Judge Bowen's analysis, and reject Kelly's analysis. Yet Judge Bowen's argument seems to me to clearly support a finding of TRUE, while I find that Kelly's actual argument misanalyzes R1023. A must curious state of affairs. To sum up what follows, I shall argue that Bowen, and Kelly in her Statement (but not her arguments), are correct that a Crime is committed for each out of order action. I shall argue with Bowen, and against Kelly, that the ordering D2, D0, D1 represents 2 Crimes and not 1. And finally, I shall argue against both Kelly and Bowen that these Crimes are committed not when D2 is performed (as Bowen later claimed he meant), but when D0 and D1 is performed. I shall argue that the performance of D2 is not actually a Crime at all! Although this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs, showing the need for an amendment to R1023 (described below), that is what R1023 actually says. My analysis focuses on the ordering D2, D0, D1. It will help to have before us once again the relevant part of R1023: Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", then: (i) if the action is one that a Player is required to perform in the course of carrying out Official duties, then the Player is required to perform the action within a week, and no later than any other action which the performance of the duties of that Office subsequently requires em to perform; Failure to observe these time requirements is a Class D Crime. The key phrases are: "...the Player is required to perform the action...no *later* than any other action which [e is] *subsequently* require[d] to perform." Because of the use of the words "later" and "subsequently", I call this the 'LS formulation'. Now think again about the ordering D2, D0, D1. In this case, has D2 been performed *later* than any other action *subsequently* required to be performed? No! In the first place, D2 was the *last* of the requirements to be incurred, so there *is* no action subsequently required to be performed which D2 has been performed later than. And in the second place, D2 is performed *first* in the series, so there are no other actions in the example which it can be performed later than. In fact, the only way the performance of D2 could be a Crime is if it were performed later than the performance of some hypothetical D3 which it was supposed to be performed prior to. Since that situation does not obtain in the example, the performance of D2 out of order is not a Crime. When, then, is the Crime committed? Look at D0. Has *it* been performed later than some action that was subsequently required to be performed? Yes it has! It has been performed later than D2, which we stipulated became required to be performed after D0. So the performance of D0 is a Crime. The same goes for D1, which has also been performed later than D2. So, in the example, 2 Crimes are committed, one when D0 is performed, and one when D1 is performed. But, looking back at Kelly's Statement, this is precisely what that Statement alleges! Kelly's Statement alleges two things: 1) ...each action which a Player is obliged to perform, but fails to perform, within the time required by this Rule is a separate and distinct Crime, 2) ...each action performed by a Player in an order which is inconsistent with the requirements of this Rule is itself a Crime separate and distinct from each other such action, and from any Crime for failure to meet the time requirement. About (1) there seems to be no disagreement. We've been discussing (2). In the case of the ordering D2, D0, D1, the only actions which are in fact inconsistent with the requirements of R1023 are D0 and D1, and lo and behold, the performance of each of these actions is itself a separate and distinct Crime. So Kelly's Statement is TRUE, despite the bad argument she gave for it, and despite Bowen's Judgement of FALSE, delivered in spite of the good argument he gave for its truth! Bizarre. That takes care of the Judicial matters, but more is left to do. Clearly, the current wording of R1023, ie the LS formulation, is inadequate. This is so because in a case like the one above, we actually *want* there to be just one Crime, committed when D2 is performed. Otherwise, we run into oddities, even absurdities. After D2 is performed, we already know that an ordering Crime has been committed (or rather, will be committed when D0 is performed), but as things stand we have to wait until D0 is performed before we know when the Crime is committed. This is silly. What can be done about it? The answer will, I think, surprise. It certainly surprised me! I propose to replace the LS formulation with what I call the EA formulation, ie replace "later" with "earlier" and "subsequently" with "already". That would mean R1023 would read like this: Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", then: (i) if the action is one that a Player is required to perform in the course of carrying out Official duties, then the Player is required to perform the action within a week, and no earlier than any other action which the performance of the duties of that Office already requires em to perform; This actually enforces exactly the same partial ordering on requirements as before - and gives the right answer in the D2, D0, D1 case. Performance of D2 in this scenario is now a Crime (as it should be), since it is the performance of an action earlier than the performance of other actions (D0 and D1), which are already required to be performed. To see that it makes sense more generally, consider the simpler case of rerquirements to perform actions D1 and D2, incurred in that order, but performed in the reverse order D2, D1. Again, I think it's clear that in this case, we ought to tie the time of commission of the Crime to the time of commission of D2. But under the LS formulation, it's the performance of D1 that's the Crime, since only D1 has been performed *later* than an action *subsequently* required to be performed. The EA formulation gets the right answer, since D2 has been performed *earlier* than some action *already* required to be performed. 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 -- ====================================================================== Decision & Reasoning CotC: I uphold the Judge's original decision of FALSE, although through another reasoning. The first thing we should do is look closely at Rule 1023. In what case is the Crime, described in this Rule committed? Reading the Rule, it says: "[...]the Player is required to perform the action within a week, and no later than any other action e is subsequently required to perform which (...)" (the wording of part (ii). Part (i) is not fundamentally different). So the crime is committed if a Player does NOT perform the action e is required to perform within a week, and no later than any other action e is subsequently required to perform etcetera. That is, if something which is required later is done earlier, the Crime consists of not doing the second thing before the first one. I think I am more clear if I make an example like the Caller has done, but this time a simpler one with only two actions, D0 and D1, of which the obligation to do D0 came before D1, and D0 should be done ASAP. If now D1 is done first, a Crime has been commited of the type defined in Rule 1023. At first I thought this would, as Steve argues, make the Crime happen only when D0 is performed, but looking back, that is not the case. The Crime namely is NOT the fact that D1 has been done before D0 (or D0 after D1) in itself, the Crime is that D0 has not been done before D1. And this is something which is indeed the case at the time (or, in fact, an infinitesimally time later) D1 is performed. However, let's now look at the situations described by the Caller. Order D0, D1, D2: No Crime. I suppose anyone would agree. Order D1, D0, D2: One Crime, namely failure to do D0 before D1. Order D0, D2, D1: One Crime, failure to do D1 before D2. Order D2, D0, D1: Two Crimes: Failure to do D0 before D2, failure to do D1 before D2. Order D2, D1, D0: Two Crimes: Failure to do D0 before D2, failure to do D1 before D2. There is also a failure to do D0 before D1, but the failure to do D0 before D1 and the failure to do D0 before D2 are one Crime, namely the failure to do D0 before any other action (which etc.) which the Player is subsequently required to perform. Order D1, D2, D0: One Crime. As above, it might be said there are two failures, but they make only one Crime. So, now let's get back to the Statement of the CFJ. What I don't agree with is the second part: "...and furthermore each action performed by a Player in an order which is inconsistent with the requirements of this Rule is itself a Crime separate and distinct from each other such action", and the thirth part "...and from any Crime for failure to meet the time requirement. The second part is clearly nonsense. If it were TRUE, then the order D1, D0 of my 'simple' case would already be two Crimes, which I think hardly anyone would argue. To be more clear: D0 and D1 are both out of order, so according to the Statement of the CFJ they would both be a Crime. The thirth part is also FALSE in my opinion, although I can imagine I change my opinion here. The case we are talking about is this: D0 is now not only done after D1, but also more than a week after the obligation to do it started. In my opinion there is still only one Crime, namely the failure to do it 'within a week, and no later than any other action which...'. It could be argued that this are 2 Crimes though, namely 1 for failure to D0 within a week, and another for failure to do it 'no later than...' Andre ====================================================================== Reasons and arguments, (Pro-)Pro-Speaker: This is a tough one for a number of reasons, and I extend grateful thanks to all past Judges and Justices on the case. And especially to CoC Andre for his tabular summary of the possiblities. The main area of disagreement in the history of this case is over exactly when the Crime occurs if a Player gets an ASAP requirement to do D0, then gets one to do D1, then does D1, and then does D0. The Rule says that to satisfy ASAP on D0, D0 must be done "no later than" D1. At what point is that requirement violated? Andre points out quite correctly that once D1 has been done, it is no longer possible to satisfy ASAP for D0. But does a Player violate a Rule by putting emself into a position where it is logically impossible for em to satisfy it? I tend to think not. To expand slightly: I would expand "do D0 no later than D1" into: - do D0 at some point in the future, and - do not do D0 later than you do D1 Once a Player has done D1 without having done D0, it is no longer possible to satisfy both of these conditions. But does that mean that one has already failed to satisfy them? Probably not. If I'm required to "say an integer on Monday, and then say the integer which is half that integer on Tuesday", and I say "7" on Monday, it's now impossible for me to do my duty on Tuesday, but I have not in fact failed in my duty until Tuesday ends. It is interesting to note, then, that if a Player simply *never* does D0, e will violate the "within a week" part of ASAP, but does not necessarily ever violate the ordering requirements. Performing D1 is therefore not itself a violation of the ordering requirements, as Steve points out; it is also not a Crime, and not "in an order inconsistent with the requirements of this Rule". So the second part of the Statement holds up nicely. The first part of the Statement is relatively uncontroversial, and I will refer the reader to prior Judgements for details. The third part of the Statement is not entirely clear to me. One might interpret it as saying that one action can be two Crimes under the ASAP Rule, if it is both late and out of order; I think this would be an error, but I also don't think that's exactly what the Statement says. I think the Statement says that each action which is either a violation of the time requirement, or of the ordering requirement, or both, is a distinct and separate Crime, and I think that that is true. Overall, then, I will Judge this Statement TRUE. I also endorse Steve's proposed amendment to the ASAP Rule to make all this clearer and more sensible. Respectfully submitted, Justice favor ====================================================================== Evidence: Rule 1023/5 (added by CotC) Rule 1023/5 (Mutable, MI=1) Definition of "As Soon As Possible" Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", then: (i) if the action is one that a Player is required to perform in the course of carrying out Official duties, then the Player is required to perform the action within a week, and no later than any other action which the performance of the duties of that Office subsequently requires em to perform; otherwise, (ii) e is required to perform that action within a week, and no later than any other action e is subsequently required to perform which is not an action performed in the course of carrying out Official duties. Failure to observe these time requirements is a Class D Crime. However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time. This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them. This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold. History: Created by Proposal 805 [date unknown] Amended by Proposal 907 [date unknown] Amended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995 Amended(4) by Proposal 1727, Oct. 6 1995 Amended(5) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995 ----------------------------------------