==============================  CFJ 1397  ==============================

    A Provision of an adopted Proposal that does not change the Ruleset
    may change a Player's Vote on a previous Proposal.

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

Caller:                                 G.
Barred:                                 root

Judge:                                  OscarMeyr
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by G.:                           01 Jul 2002 17:58:29 GMT
Assigned to OscarMeyr:                  08 Jul 2002 01:52:42 GMT
Judged TRUE by OscarMeyr:               15 Jul 2002 00:20:27 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

This Caller is arguing for a judgement of FALSE in all of the
of the above Statements.

By the Rule 1011 definition, a Player's legal vote on a Proposal,
and the existence of Stems and the possession of Stems by Players,
are all Nomic Properties.

Rule 594 (Power=3) reads in part:  "For the purpose of the Rules,
the application of an adopted Proposal is a legal procedure for
changing Nomic Properties."

There is no suggestion in these two Rules that the changing of
Properties by Proposal requires the adoption of a Proposal of
a particular specified Power.  So what are the limits of a Proposal's
Power in this regard?

The conclusion that a Judge could reach is:
   (A) All and any Properties may be changed by a Proposal
       of any Power.
   (B) No Properties may be changed by any Proposal of any
       Power.
   (C) Some Properties may be changed by some Proposals.

This Caller argues that (A) should be rejected, specifically with
respect to voting (hence the first CFJ).  If Votes may be changed by
Proposal, then the following scam would allow a Power-4 Proposal to
pass with an AI of 1:
   Proposal X (AI-4): reads "The Oligarchs are Emperors" and
       fails to pass (is voted down).
   Proposal Y (AI-1): reads "All Votes cast on Proposal X are
       deemed to have been votes FOR."
If this is allowable, it contravenes all voting Rules that protect
us from such manipulation.  Thus, the first CFJ above should be FALSE.
In other words, A "legal" procedure (in R594) for changing a Property
does not imply a "wholly valid and sufficient" procedure if other Rules
disallow the change.

There are enough Rules that specifically disallow changing votes to
prevent this series of events from occurring---for brevity, these are
not discussed, but if the Judge finds CFJ 1 to be True, these Rules are
dangerously broken.  I further argue that these limiting Rules do not
have to be of higher precedence than 594 to forbid the change:  Rule 594
allows that some properties *may* be changed legally, while other Rules
(even of lower power) may forbid specific changes without contradicting
Rule 594.

This Caller argues that (B) should be rejected as well, as it was by CFJ
1377.  Debts (the subject of CFJ 1377) have no specific Regulation
limiting their creation other than that they are "obligations arising
under the Rules" (R1596).  CFJ 1377 held that the 594's "legal procedure
for changing Properties" clause was sufficient to cause debts to "arise
under the Rules" upon the adoption of a Proposal.

If (A) and (B) are rejected, then (C) is true, and the remaining task
is to decide how the line is drawn between Nomic Properties which may
be changed by Proposals and which may not.

Are Stems in themselves tightly-enough regulated to prevent their
arbitrary creation and destruction by Proposal?  In specific,
did Proposal 4331 succeed in creation and destruction in the
following clauses:

"Upon the adoption of this Proposal:
 - All stems in existence are destroyed.
 - 50000 Stems are created in the possession of the Bank.
 - A quantity of stems equal to the New Player Award in Stems is
   created in the possession of each Player."

This caller argues that these provisions did not succeed, and thus
CFJs 2 and 3, above, should be considered FALSE.  Stems are both
Nomic Properties (R1011) and Property (R1942).  And according to
Rule 1942 "Individual properties may not be created or destroyed,
or their ownership changed, except in accordance with the rules."
And Rule 1471 explicity allows creation and destruction under
two circumstances only:

    New units of a Currency are created when the Mintor of that
    Currency transmits to the Recordkeepor of that Currency a notice
    that e is creating new units of that Currency, specifying the
    number of units that e is creating.  The newly created units are
    added to the Mintor's possessions.

    Units of Currency are destroyed when any entity which possesses
    units of that Currency transmits to the Recordkeepor of that
    Currency a notice that e is destroying units of that Currency,
    specifying the number of units that e is destroying.  An entity
    cannot destroy more units of a Currency than e possesses,
    however.  The units destroyed are removed from the possession of
    the entity performing the destruction.

These events did not take place when Proposal 4331 passed, and therefore
no Units of currency were created or destroyed.  Not only is the only
mechanism for the creation of currencies Minting, but the Minting
of Bank currencies is directly forbidden by Rule 1974, "The Bank may not
otherwise Mint new units of a Bank Currency except through the mechanism
set forth in this Rule."

It is possible to interpret the provisions of Proposal 4331 as being
Legislative Orders, ordering:
        (1) Each Player to destroy their own stems;
        (2) The Mintor (Bank) to create new Stems and give them
            to players.
CFJ 1377 rejected this interpretation for "billing", but in this case
no entity was authorized to "bill."  However, in Proposal 4331, specific
entities are authorized to create and destroy currencies, while the
direct action of the Proposal is not (this is the opposite of CFJ 1381).
However, this argument may be rather difficult to sustain given CFJ
1377's argument that each order must be directed at a specific entity.

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

Caller's Evidence:

Rule 1011/4 (Power=2)
Definition of Nomic Property

      A Nomic Property is any property of any entity the value of
      which is defined by the Rules.  Other Rules may define
      procedures by which the value of a Nomic Property may be
      changed.


Rule 594/6 (Power=3)
Power and Proposals

      No Rule may have Power less than 1 or greater than 4.  Except as
      described in this Rule, no entity can set the Power of another
      entity to exceed the Power of the entity causing the Power to be
      so set.  No entity may destroy or repeal an entity with Power
      greater than its own.

      When a Proposal takes effect, its Power shall be set equal to
      its Adoption Index, and the provisions contained in the text of
      the Proposal are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by
      the Rules.

      The Adoption Index of a Proposal is the maximum of 1, the value
      requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value required for
      that Proposal by the Rules (if any).

      Provisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable are
      ignored.  In a Proposal containing more than one provision, each
      provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal
      states otherwise.

      For the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted
      Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties.


Rule 1942/2 (Power=1)
Property

      A property is an entity which the rules permit to be possessed
      by another entity.  The term "possess" refers to the legal
      status of possessing a property; the terms "possessor" and
      "owner" are synonyms, as are "possess" and "own".  Individual
      properties may not be created or destroyed, or their ownership
      changed, except in accordance with the rules.

      Each property shall have a recordkeepor, which is a player
      required to maintain a record of who owns that property.  The
      Treasuror is the recordkeepor for each property that would
      otherwise have no recordkeepor.

      If one of the official duties of an officer is to be the
      recordkeepor of a property, then eir Weekly Report shall include
      this record and any changes thereto since the last posting of
      eir Report.


Rule 1471/2 (Power=1)
Creation and Destruction of Units of Currency

      New units of a Currency are created when the Mintor of that
      Currency transmits to the Recordkeepor of that Currency a notice
      that e is creating new units of that Currency, specifying the
      number of units that e is creating.  The newly created units are
      added to the Mintor's possessions.

      Units of Currency are destroyed when any entity which possesses
      units of that Currency transmits to the Recordkeepor of that
      Currency a notice that e is destroying units of that Currency,
      specifying the number of units that e is destroying.  An entity
      cannot destroy more units of a Currency than e possesses,
      however.  The units destroyed are removed from the possession of
      the entity performing the destruction.


Rule 1974/1 (Power=1)
Restriction on Minting of Bank Currencies by the Bank

      The Bank, by the Treasuror, may Mint new units of a Bank
      Currency only as follows:

      (a) At any time, Without Objection, unless the Currency to be
          Minted is Stems.

      (b) In the event that the Voting Entitlement Surplus exceeds the
          Bank's holdings of VEs, a number of VEs not to exceed the
          difference between the Voting Entitlement Surplus and the
          Bank's Holdings of VEs, with Two Supporters.

      The Bank may not otherwise Mint new units of a Bank Currency
      except through the mechanism set forth in this Rule.

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

Judge OscarMeyr's Arguments:

R683 defines the legal values of a vote.  Under R1011, a vote's value
(hereafter considered identical with the vote) is therefore a Nomic
Property.

R1011 states that Rules may define procedures to change Nomic
Properties.  This Rule therefore regulates, at an abstract level, the
changing of Nomic Properties.  Since this action is regulated by the
Rules, it must be done as the Rules permit or prohibit.

R594 permits the use of an adopted Proposal for changing Nomic
Properties in general.  If the Rules contain no prohibition against the
use of Proposals for changing a particular Nomic Property (or class
thereof), then a Proposal may be used to change the Nomic Property in
question.  This is a broad case of conclusion (C) set forth by the
Caller.

In this particular case, the Nomic Property in question is a Player's
Votes on a Proposal.  After reviewing the Rules and testing preliminary
opinions on the discussion list, I have found no restriction in the
Rules on the use of Proposals to change Proposal Votes.  There are Rules
that prohibit or require the cancellation of a Vote, and R683 prohibits
a Vote's caster from changing eir vote once cast -- but none of this
prevents or modifies usage of the general procedure, the application of
an adopted Proposal, for changing Votes.

I therefore (reluctantly) return a decision of TRUE on CFJ 1397.

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

Judge OscarMeyr's Evidence:

Rule 683/10 (Power=1)
Voting on Proposals

      A Voter authorised to cast votes on a particular Proposal may do
      so only by informing the Assessor of the vote or votes e is
      casting on that Proposal. Once cast, a vote cannot be changed or
      cancelled by the Voter which cast it, although it may be
      cancelled as other Rules require.

      A vote upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN
      (or an obvious synonym of one of these).  Something which is not
      one of these is not a vote upon a Proposal.

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