==============================  CFJ 1284  ==============================

    On or about Tue, Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:18:41 -0600,Kelly violated Rule
    1729.

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

Caller:                                 Hooloovoo
Barred:                                 Kelly

Judge:                                  Evantine
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by Hooloovoo:                    07 Mar 2001 01:28:04 GMT
Assigned to Evantine:                   08 Mar 2001 09:09:47 GMT
Judged FALSE by Evantine:               10 Mar 2001 04:26:14 GMT

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

Caller's Evidence:

Return-Path: <owner-agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au>
Delivered-To: hooloovoo@acmemail.net
Received: (qmail 5970 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2001 19:34:53 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au) (131.170.42.16)
  by flash3.flashmail.com with SMTP; 6 Mar 2001 19:34:53 -0000
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
   by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA30646
   for agora-discussion-list; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 19:16:39 GMT
Received: from fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (fw-in.serc.rmit.edu.au [131.170.42.1])
   by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA30643
   for <agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au>; Tue, 6 Mar 2001
19:16:36 GMT
Received: (from mail@localhost)
   by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id GAA26913
   for <agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au>; Wed, 7 Mar 2001
06:26:46 +1100 (EST)
Received: from c453332-a.mntp1.il.home.com(24.5.225.153) by
fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1)
   id xma026911; Wed, 7 Mar 01 06:26:37 +1100
Received: from ozma.pyrzqxgl.org (ozma.pyrzqxgl.org [192.168.0.3])
   by oz.pyrzqxgl.org (8.11.3/8.11.2/Debian 8.11.2-1) with ESMTP id
f26JIf519753;
   Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:18:41 -0600
Received: from kmartin by ozma.pyrzqxgl.org with local (Exim 3.22 #1
(Debian))
   id 14aMyn-0002hF-00; Tue, 06 Mar 2001 13:18:41 -0600
From: Kelly Martin <kmartin@pyrzqxgl.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15013.14353.549377.489290@ozma.pyrzqxgl.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:18:41 -0600
To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
Subject: DIS: Votes, 4119-4121
X-Mailer: VM 6.89 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid
Sender: owner-agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au

I must admit to having misgivings about the current batch of
Proposals.  I have no reason to support 4120 since I am not in its
benefit class.  4119 has the odd phrase "With 2 Support" which does
not exactly match the standard language for Dependent Actions which
would tend to incline me to vote AGAINST it, but in general I don't
think I have a problem with it.  And I am not convinced that 4121
fixes anything broken.

So my votes remain uncommitted.

Kelly

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

Judge Evantine's Arguments:

Rule 1729 reads:

"An Interested Proposal is Insane, if it contains no minuscule letter. (That
is the opposite of CAPITAL, for those who know not better.)

For such a Proposal, until the Voting Period has ended: there shall be no
discussing Votes, or this Rule has been bended. [...]"

The first question is, does 1729 apply?  It could potentially apply if any
of proposals currently being voted on was an Insane proposal. The only
potential candidate is proposal 4120.

Here's the relevant proposal 4120:

<quote>
Proposal #4120 by harvel, AI=2
Start the Sanity-Insanity

THIS PROPOSAL IS SANE.

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, THAT THE TREASUROR PAY OUT 100 STEMS TO EACH
PLAYER WHO IS NOT A SENATOR AT THE TIME THIS PROPOSAL PASSES.
</quote>

We must ask, was proposal 4120 an Insane proposal?  It proclaims that it is
"SANE".  The Judge finds this proclamation itself insufficient reason to
make the proposal not Insane, for several reasons.  First, it's not clear
that any proposal that is SANE is not also Insane.  Second, the Rule 1729
would certainly take precedence over the yet-to-be-adopted proposal.

However, there is a substantial question here, which is "does the proposal
contain a minuscule letter?"  The title is in minuscule, so if the Title is
part of the proposal, then the proposal contains minuscule letters, and so
it's not Insane.

To answer this, we turn next to the definition of a proposal.

<quote>
Rule 1483/8 (Power=1)
Definition of Proposals

      A Proposal is created when a Legislator who is not Mute sends a
      body of text to the Public Forum with the clear indication that
      it is intended to become a Proposal.  The collection of text
      becomes a Proposal and the entity delivering that text becomes
      the Proposer of that Proposal. This process is known as
      Proposing or submitting a Proposal.[...]
</quote>

It is stated that "The collection of text becomes a proposal".  Was the
title included in "The collection of text" when the proposal was originally
proposed?  Here's the text of harvel's original message:

<quote>
I hereby propose "Start the Sanity-Insanity", the text of which is below,
delimited by rows of five hyphens (each).  I request an AI of 2 for
"Start the Sanity-Insanity".

-----
THIS PROPOSAL IS SANE.

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, THAT THE TREASUROR PAY OUT 100 STEMS TO EACH
PLAYER WHO IS NOT A SENATOR AT THE TIME THIS PROPOSAL PASSES.
-----

--
Michael Slone (harvel)
</quote>

The collection of text is clearly delimited in hyphen marks (which harvel
even explictly calls out).  The exact text is specified as such  in the
comments above the actual proposal.  harvel's intention was clearly that the
text so delimited was intended as the "collection of text" referred to by
Rule 1483.

Also, we can take our guidance from the rule that specifies that titles of
Rules are not part of the Rule itself.

Rule 1485/8 (Power=1)
Titles for Rules

      Each Rule has a Title, which is a single line of text
      containing not more than 60 characters.  The Title must be
      listed by the Rulekeepor along with the Rule.  However, the
      Title is not part of the Rule itself and has no effect on the
      meaning or application of the Rule, being merely a convenience
      for the Players.

      A Rule Change that Creates a new Rule may specify a Title for
      the new Rule.  If it does not, the Rulekeepor shall choose the
      new Rule's Title.

      The Rulekeepor is authorized to change the Title of a Rule
      Without Objection.


By analogy with rules, and by the clear definition given by harvel in his
post delimiting the "collection of text" that is to become part of a
proposal, I conclude that the title of the Proposal is not actually part of
the Proposal.

Thus, the entire text of the Proposal is in CAPITAL letters, so Proposal
4120 is Insane.

The next question is, was Kelly's action actually in the voting period for
proposal 4120?

<quote>
The Voting Period for a Proposal is seven days, beginning when
      the Proposal is distributed.  Other Rules may specify other
      lengths of Voting Periods for particular classes of Proposals.
</quote>

The proposal was distributed by Elysion's message dated Tue, 6 Mar 2001
11:04:56.  This date was taken from the eScribe site (different from the
date "Generated" given below probably due to the time zone).  The date on
the message in question from Kelly is Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:34:07 obtained from
the same site, so we will assume that these dates are in the same time zone
and that Kelly's message was indeed submitted during the Voting Period for
Proposal 4120.

Elysion's message:
<quote>
Proposal Distribution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Generated: Tue Mar  6 13:57:56 EST 2001

No.    | Title                          | By           | AI | Date    |
Flag
       |                                |              |    |         |
4119   | The CotC's Budget 1.1          | Blob         |  2 | 19Jan01 | C
4120   | Start the Sanity-Insanity      | harvel       |  2 | 05Feb01 | CIS
4121   | Patch Up Dependent Actions     | Ziggy        |  2 | 20Feb01 | C

D: Disinterested  C: Democratic  U: Urgent  S: Sane  I: Insane

Voting Mode: Public
<quote>

Kelly's message: (also submitted by the Caller)
<quote>
I must admit to having misgivings about the current batch of
Proposals.  I have no reason to support 4120 since I am not in its
benefit class.  4119 has the odd phrase "With 2 Support" which does
not exactly match the standard language for Dependent Actions which
would tend to incline me to vote AGAINST it, but in general I don't
think I have a problem with it.  And I am not convinced that 4121
fixes anything broken.

So my votes remain uncommitted.

Kelly
</quote>

The next question is, was the above discussion of votes for rule 4120
actually a violation of the Rule?

I find that the Rule was unquestionably bended, according to the text of the
Rule.  However, "bended" does not mean "violated".  I grant that "bended" is
being used in a poetic sense for "bent".  "Bent" implies stretched, but not
beyond the elastic limit, or the limit of breaking.  "Violated" implies a
standard equivalent to "broken".

Therefore I find that although the rule was "bended", or even "bent", it was
not "broken", or violated.

Hence, I judge the CFJ to be FALSE.

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