==============================  CFJ 1440  ==============================

    Proposal 4453 had an Adoption Index of 1.


Caller:                                 Sherlock
Barred:                                 Steve
Barred:                                 Maud
Barred:                                 root

Judge:                                  Michael
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by Sherlock:                     24 Feb 2003 16:23:29 GMT
Assigned to Michael:                    02 Mar 2003 20:58:28 GMT
Judged TRUE by Michael:                 09 Mar 2003 00:36:15 GMT
Appealed by RedKnight:                  10 Mar 2003 20:50:50 GMT
Appealed by OscarMeyr:                  11 Mar 2003 04:05:20 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

There are two important issues here: timing and the term "the value

Firstly, timing.  While the AI is traditionally requested in the message
submitting the Proposal, it is legal in R594 to do it at any time before
the Voting Period ends.  However, it is only a "request" by the Proposer
before the end of the Period -- the Assessor is the one who actually
creates the AI, per the third paragraph of R594.  Also per R594, this is
not done when the request is made, but is determined by the Assessor
after the Voting Period ends.

Therefore, when the Assessor attempted to process the requested AI
for P4453, e would have been looking at two values: 3 and 1, per the
respective requests submitted.

Secondly, the phrase "the value requested".  "The" can only refer to one
request.  Even if R594 did not say this (which it does), it would be
nonsensical for a Proposal to have two different AI's, since a Rule
can only have one Power.  The Assessor could only assign one AI to the

There are two different possible way to read R594, both of which would
end up assigning an AI of 1 to Proposal 4453:

1) If the intent of R594 is for the Assessor to determine the intent of
   the Proposer towards the Proposal's AI and use that as "the" value,
   the Proposer's intent in P4453 was clear -- submitting the second
   AI request would supercede the first.  If the Proposer is only
   allowed one AI request at the end of the Voting Period, then the
   second message has to be read as having the intention to supplant the

2) However, if this argument is unconvincing, and the Assessor should not
   attempt to guess at the intent of the Proposer, then it is impossible
   that the Assessor could have used either AI -- there were two different
   values submitted and there is no way either of them was "the value
   requested."  Therefore, the requests were void and the default AI
   of 1 should have been used.

Either way, the Assessor should have used an AI of 1 for Proposal 4453.


Caller's Evidence:

When I first submitted the Proposal "Teamwork":


I requested that it have an Adoption Index (herafter, AI) equal to 3.

The Proposal was then distributed and approximately twenty minutes
before the Voting Period ended I submitted this message:


with the text:

  I request that Proposal 4453, "Teamwork", have an Adoption Index
  equal to 1.


Judge Michael's Arguments:

The key text in this case is this paragraph from rule 594:

      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).

No other rule attempts to define the Adoption Index of a proposal.
There are three possible values that we are required to consider.  It
is clear that the Rules made no special requirement for this
particular Proposal, so the third clause does not specify a value.

Thus we must decide if "the value requested by its Proposer (if any)"
denotes a value.  The Caller's argument is that two requests by the
Proposer sufficiently muddies the waters, so that one can not
meaningfully speak of "*the* value requested by the Proposer".

There is some precedent elsewhere in the ruleset (and some general
Agoran culture) to the effect that binding statements are made once
and can't generally be retracted, but I see no reason (best interests
of the game etc) to try to force a precedent of that nature in this
case.  Rather, it is clear in this case that the rule in question is
not well worded and should be revised.

I agree with the Caller's Argument, and return a verdict of TRUE.


Appellant RedKnight's Arguments:

As the H. Judge has pointed out, no other rule attempts to define the AI of
a proposal.  However, the judge has failed to consider the value that Rule
594 defines (and requires) for the proposal.  I believe that Rule 594 should
be applied, in an almost recursive fassion, each time an AI is requested for
a proposal.

Consider this:  When the proposal is proposed, an AI of 3 is requested.
Rule 594 then defines (and requires) the AI to be the mamimum of (1, 3[the
value requested by the proposer], and N/A [the value required by the
rules]), which is 3.  The second time an AI is requested for this proposal,
Rule 594 defines (and requires) the AI to be the mamimum of (1, 1[the value
requested by the proposer], and 3 [the value required by the rules]), which
is still 3.

Thus after each time an AI was requested for the proposal, the rules defined
(and required) to be 3.