From owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Wed Jan 24 05:38:03 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 FAA09549 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 05:37:51 -0600 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA08294; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 03:34:43 -0800 Received: by desiree.teleport.com (bulk_mailer v1.3); Wed, 24 Jan 1996 03:34:39 -0800 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id DAA08252 for nomic-official-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 03:34:35 -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 DAA08198 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 03:34:15 -0800 Message-Id: <199601241134.DAA08198@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing2.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA17945; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 12:33:53 +0100 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: CFJ 841 Judgement: FALSE To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Wed, 24 Jan 96 12:33:53 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 ====================================================================== ASSIGNMENT CFJ 841 "Rule 1469 should be interpreted so that when the destruction of a Treasury which contains a negative amount of any Currency is required by the Rules, that Treasury is destroyed even if the transfer of the negative Currencies within does not happen." ====================================================================== Judge: Swann (defaulted) (M) Blob (defaulted) favor Judgement: FALSE Eligible: Andre, favor, Kelly, Murphy, Steve, Vanyel, Vlad (S) Blob, Chuck, Morendil Not Eligible: Caller: Morendil Barred: On Hold: Dave Bowen 1005: KoJen, Michael, Pascal, Wes (M) Chuck, Morendil Defaulted: Swann (M) Blob Effects: Swann gains 3 Blots for defaulting on Judgement Swann is not eligible to be a Judge (M) Blob gains 3 Blots for defaulting (M) Blob is not eligible to be a Judge favor gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement ====================================================================== History: Called by Morendil, Mon, 1 Jan 1996 22:43:01 +0001 Assigned to Swann, 4 January 1995, 02:40 MET Defaulted by Swann, 11 January 1995, 02:40 MET (M) Assigned to Blob, 15 January 1995, 13:50 +0100 (M) Defaulted by Blob, 22 January 1995, 13:50 +0100 Assigned to favor, 23 January 1995, 12:52 MET (M) Judged FALSE by favor, 23 January 1996, 10:23 EST (S) Judged FALSE by favor, 23 January 1996, 10:45 EST ====================================================================== Reasons & arguments : none. Relevant Rules : 1472, 1469. I respectfully request of the Judge an Injuction to annotate Rule 1469 with this Statement. ===================================================================== Reasons and Arguments, Judge: The Statement is, I fear, FALSE only on extremely narrow and uninteresting, yet unavoidable, grounds. As my esteemed colleague noted in the Judgement of CFJ 842: > Rule 1469/2 doesn't say anything about what happens when > Treasury-destruction in general occurs; it just talks about > what happens when a Treasury-possessing entity is destroyed. Therefore any statement of the form "Rule 1469 should be interpreted so that " is FALSE on its face. There could be other instances of Treasury-destruction, unrelated to the destruction of a Treasury-possessing entity, and since 1469 would be silent on them, it seems clear that it cannot be interpreted as having any bearing whatever upon them. Note that a related Statement such as "Rule 1469 should be interpreted so that when an Entity which possesses a Treasury is destroyed, or ceases to be permitted to possess a Treasury, the Treasury is destroyed even if the transfer of the negative Currencies within does not happen." would have been judged TRUE (see the Judge's arguments in CFJ's 842 and 843). And so, of course, would have been "The Rules should be interpreted so that when the destruction of a Treasury which contains a negative amount of any Currency is required by the Rules, that Treasury is destroyed even if the transfer of the negative Currencies within does not happen." for the uninteresting reason that *any* statement of the form "The Rules should be interpreted so that when X is required by the Rules, X occurs" must be TRUE. It is possible to argue that if a Statement like "The Rules generally should be interpreted so that X" is TRUE, then so is any statement of the form "Rule ZZZZ should be interpreted so that X". If that were correct, I should Judge the Statement in this CFJ to be TRUE, on the grounds that it says "Rule 1469 should be interpreted so that if the Rules require X to occur, then it does occur". But I think this would be misleading; while it is true in logic that every statement implies a tautology, we are dealing with human language here, not logic, and "Rule 1469 should be interpreted so that X" is not merely a more complex way of saying "If Rule 1469, then X". The injunction is, of course, denied. Respectfully submitted, Judge favor