From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Mon Jan 15 08:22:31 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 IAA20499 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 08:22:30 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id GAA14123 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 06:19:57 -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 GAA14100 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 06:19:53 -0800 Message-Id: <199601151419.GAA14100@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing3.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA24047; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 15:18:18 +0100 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: CFJ 843 Judgement: TRUE To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Mon, 15 Jan 96 15:18:18 MET Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== ASSIGNMENT CFJ 843 The Rules in general should be interpreted so that if a sentence says that 'event X happens and event Y happens', where X and Y are both modifications of some sort to the game state, the word 'and' is _not_ taken to mean that Y cannot occur if X does not occur. ====================================================================== Judge: Swann (defaulted) favor Judgement: TRUE Eligible: Andre, Blob, Chuck, favor, Kelly, Steve, Vanyel, Zefram Not Eligible: Caller: Morendil Barred: On Hold: Dave Bowen 1005: KoJen, Michael, Pascal, Wes Defaulted: Swann Effects: Swann gains 3 Blots for defaulting on Judgement Swann is not eligible to act as a Judge * favor gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement (1 hour and 4 minutes - is that a record?) ====================================================================== History: Called by Morendil, Mon, 1 Jan 1996 22:43:01 +0001 Assigned to Swann, 4 January 1995, 02:34 MET Defaulted by Swann, 11 January 1995, 02:34 MET Assigned to favor, 15 January 1995, 13:55 MET Judged TRUE by favor, 15 January 1995, 08:59 EST ====================================================================== Reasons & arguments : none. ====================================================================== Decision & Reasoning Judge: In the Judgement of CFJ 842, the Judge, a close personal friend of mine, wrote: > The relevant > part of 1469/2 says "If A, then X and Y". If some other > rule with a higher precendence forbids X, then if A, I > would expect that the effect of 1469/2 would be Y. This generalizes nicely into the Statement of this CFJ, and suggests that it should be Judged TRUE. And in general it seems reasonable to assume that, absent any strong reason in the rest of the Rule in question to think otherwise, the connective "and" should be taken to mean, well, "and". Just as if the Rule had been written "Event X happens." "Event Y happens." rather than as "Event X happens and Event Y happens." Respectfully submitted, Judge favor