==============================  CFJ 1238  ==============================

    Rule 1930 "Scoring" is the only Rule allowing a Point Award or
    Penalty for any particular type of event, and has been the only such
    Rule since it and Rule 1929 "Points" were enacted.  Therefore, any
    notification of the occurrence of such an event implicitly specifies
    Rule 1930 as the Rule allowing the Award or Penalty.

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

Caller:                                 Murphy

Judge:                                  Blob
Judgement:                              DISMISS

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

History:

Called by Murphy:                       31 Jul 2000 05:17:19 GMT
Assigned to Blob:                       31 Jul 2000 15:30:15 GMT
Dismissed by Blob:                      02 Aug 2000 12:23:40 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

I am already screening all my PF mail for Score-worthy events.  I
don't want to have to *also* check for an explicit specification of
Rule 1930 - which no one seems to be giving - or to check whether
I'm reading the message within 7 days after it was sent, and can thus
specify Rule 1930 to myself by thinking about it.  If this CFJ is
Judged FALSE, then a *ton* of Score history will be have to be
recalculated for no good reason - and I will move to Ratify the
Scorekeepor's Report to avoid it.

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

Judge Blob's Arguments:

Before I look into the facts of the matter, I wish to point out that
the statement of this CFJ is poorly chosen. It could well have been
stated as "Any notification of the occurrence of such an event implicitly
specifies Rule 1930 as the Rule allowing the Award or Penalty." and
the remainder given as arguments. (Or even more succinctly "Lee has 10
Points"). This, I think, is what the Caller truly wants me to arbitrate
on. Unfortunately with the statement as given, I am bound to judge true
only if all the following conditions are all true:

   i) Rule 1930 "Scoring" is the only Rule allowing a Point Award or
      Penalty for any particular type of event

  ii) Rule 1930 has been the only such Rule since it and Rule 1929
     "Points" were enacted.

 iii) Any notification of the occurrence of such an event implicitly
      specifies Rule 1930 as the Rule allowing the Award or Penalty.

Not only is this an extra burden on the Judge, but it may also be the
case that statement (iii) is true while one or more of the other
statements is not. The CFJ would then have to be judged FALSE, and the
issue at stake would remain undecided.

Now, taking each of these conditions in turn:

   i) Rule 1930 "Scoring" is the only Rule allowing a Point Award or
      Penalty for any particular type of event

Indeed, I can find no other rule in the ruleset which describes specific
Point Awards or Penalties for any events, so I judge this condition to
be true.

  ii) Rule 1930 has been the only such Rule since it and Rule 1929
     "Points" were enacted.

This is a little harder to ascertain, as it requires me to examine
all rules that have existed since Feb 23 this year. I have consulted
the Escribe archives and checked every Short Logical Ruleset published
since that date. I can find no evidence of any other rule ever having
existed which described Point Awards or Penalties for particular events,
so I judge this condition to also be true.

 iii) Any notification of the occurrence of such an event implicitly
      specifies Rule 1930 as the Rule allowing the Award or Penalty.

This is the heart of the issue. I presume that the Caller's interest in
whether the statement specifies Rule 1930 is related to the requirement
in Rule 1929:

      Such a notification must meet the following requirements, else
      it is invalid:
         -- It must be sent within 7 days of the event
         -- It must unambiguously describe the event
         -- It must indicate the Rule allowing the Award or Penalty
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
         -- It must be the first such notification for that specific
            event

So does a statement such as "harvel is Awarded 10 Points for winning
a contested election", specify (or indicate) Rule 1930 as the Rule
allowing the Award or Penalty?

We have debated the nature of communication before in this game, and I
think it is agreed that all communication involves some explicit and
some implicit information. Clearly Rule 1930 is not mentioned
specifically. The question is whether the explicit information in
the statement is enough to imply that it is the acting Rule.

This prompts us to ask, "Imply to whom?". This statement might imply
different things to different Players. Certainly, this judge was not
aware before reading this CFJ that Rule 1930 was the rule that
defined point awards and penalties. So a statement like the example
above would not inform em in any way about the Rule allowing the Award
or Penalty. If we interpret rule 1929 to say that the indication
must be made to all Players, then this is a straightforward counter-
example.

But there is another possibility, which I consider more likely: It may
only be the Scorekeepor who needs to be informed. The message in question
need only be sent to the Scorekeepor, so it is sensible to assume that
e is the one who has to interpret it. Still, it is by no means certain
that the Scorekeepor will generally be able to form the necessary
implications of the statement. It is more likely that e would know the
identity of the Rule that regulates point awards and penalties, but
it is by no means certain.

This doubt arises because of the generality of the statement. I am not
called upon to judge whether any particular statements made in the past
have specified Rule 1930 to a particular Scorekeepor. Instead I have to
determine whether any statement of this kind would in general implicitly
specify Rule 1930. To this I cannot give an answer.

Without a definite answer to this problem, I determine this statement
to be undecidable, and rule that it be dismissed. I encourage the
Caller to submit another CFJ of a more specific nature about particular
scoring events that have already been processed.

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

Judge Blob's Evidence:

Rule 1929/1 (Power=1)
Points

      Points are a measure of a Player's unloserliness. The number of
      Points a Player has is called eir Score. The Score of each
      Player is at all times an integer. A new Player, or a Player
      with no Score starts with a Score of zero Points.

      The Rules may specify that certain events may cause a certain
      Player to be Awarded Points (causing eir Score to be increased)
      or Penalized Points (causing eir Score to be decreased). If said
      event occurs, then any Player may notify the Scorekeepor of the
      Award or Penalty. The Scorekeepor shall then note the change in
      the affected Player's Score.

      Such a notification must meet the following requirements, else
      it is invalid:
         -- It must be sent within 7 days of the event
         -- It must unambiguously describe the event
         -- It must indicate the Rule allowing the Award or Penalty
         -- It must be the first such notification for that specific
            event

      Having a Score of 200 Points or more is a Win Condition. If at
      any time a Player Wins the Game, all Player's Scores shall
      instantly be set to zero.

History:
Created by Proposal 3977 (Wes), Feb. 23 2000
Amended(1) by Propsoal 3993 (t), Apr. 20 2000

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 1930/0 (Power=1)
Scoring

      If a Player is found Guilty of a Crime, e may be Penalized
      a number of Points equal to the Class of the Crime times 2.

      If a Player wins a contested Election, e may be Awarded
      10 Points.

      If a Player Resigns from an Office, e may be Penalized
      5 Points.

      If a Player is Impeached, e may be Penalized 15 Points.

      If a Revolt succeeds, each Rebellious Player may be Awarded
      15 Points.

      If a Revolt fails, each Rebellious Player may be Penalized
      10 Points.

      If a Player submits a Proposal which is Adopted, e may be
      Awarded a number of Points equal to twice the number of
      AGAINST Votes cast on that Proposal.

      If a Player submits an Insane Proposal which is Adopted,
      e may be Awarded 5 Points, in addition to any other Awards
      for that particular Proposal.

      If a Player is the only Player to Vote either FOR or AGAINST
      a particular Proposal that e did not write or Propose, e may
      be Awarded 10 Points.

      If a Judgement is Sustained on Appeal, the original Judge
      may be Awarded 5 Points

      If a Judgement is Overturned on Appeal, the original Judge
      may be Penalized 5 Points.

      If a Player gains a Patent Title, e may be Awarded 5 Points.

      If a Player is granted a Degree, e may be Awarded 10 Points.

History:
Created by Proposal 3977 (Wes), Feb. 23 2000

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