From: <magika@aracnet.com>
To: agora-off <agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au>
Subject: OFF: CFJ 1177 Judged FALSE
Date: Monday, November 15, 1999 2:57 AM



======================================================================
                              CFJ 1177

    The Proposal "Voters and Legislators 1.1", as Proposed by Peekee
    on the 6th of November 1999, was made Disinterested by Peekee on
    the 9th of November 1999.

======================================================================

Called by:           Peekee

Judge:               Lee
Judgement:           FALSE

Judge selection:

Eligible:            Lee, Michael, Murphy, oerjan, Palnatoke, t

Not eligible:
Caller:              Peekee
Barred:              Wes
Had their turn:      Blob, Chuck, Crito, Elysion, harvel, Kolja
Already served:      -
Defaulted:           -
By request:          -
On Hold:             elJefe, Steve

======================================================================

History:

Called by Peekee:                     11 Nov 1999 10:18:26 +0000
Assigned to Lee:                      13 Nov 1999 10:58:46 -0800
Judged FALSE by Lee:                  14 Nov 1999 21:14:23 -0600
Judgement Distributed:                As of this message

=====================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

Considering, Rule 1728/4 (Power=1) "Actions Without N Objections"

      (a) When the Rules specify that an action may be performed
          "Without N Objections", where N is an integer between one
          and five inclusive, that action may be legally performed
          under the following conditions:

Rule 1623/10 (Power=1), "Disinterested Proposals" States that the
Proposer of a Proposal may make it disinterested without Objection.
In game tradition this is taken as meaning "Without 1 Objection".


        (1) The Player who seeks to perform the action has announced
            eir intent to perform that action not fewer than four days
            before, nor more than fourteen days before, the
            performance of the action, and this announcement must
            unambiguously describe the action to be performed;

I announced my intent to make the Proposal "Voters and Legislators
1.1" Disinterested, on the 5th of November.  This was in the correct
period of time.  The description unambiguously described the action
of making a Proposal titled "Voters and Legislators 1.1" Disinterested.

        (2) The action performed must match exactly the action
            described in the announcement made under subdivision
            (a)(1) of this Rule;

I made the Proposal "Voters and Legislators 1.1" Disinterested.  This
matches exactly with the action I described in the my statement of
intent.

        (3) The Rule which authorizes the performance of that action
            Without N Objections must explicitly state which Player or
            Players are authorized to perform that action; and

It does.

        (4) During the time between the announcement made under
            subdivision (a)(1) of this Rule and the performance of the
            action itself, fewer than N Players have posted, in the
            Public Forum, Objections to the performance of that
            action.

They did not. The rest of the Rule is largely unimportant in this case.

Thus, I was legally entitled to make the Proposal "Voters and
Legislators 1.1" Disinterested on the 9th of November, and as such
my attempt to do so was successful.

(For further arguments refer to a-d)

======================================================================

Evidence attached by the Caller:

<none>

======================================================================

Judge's Arguments:

Many a slip between cup and lip. Since the proposal did not exist at
the time that he refers to it as a proposal and he does not refer
to it in a way that unambiguously referred to a unique proposal I
think his attempt to declare intent fails. Perhaps he could have
referred to it in a less ambiguous manner. Perhaps that would not
have mattered as it was not a proposal at that time. I think the
reference is ambiguous in various ways, so i judge false.

======================================================================