CALL FOR JUDGEMENT 31 (Ronald Kunne)

Whereas, in the Current Rule Set as distributed by the message with
         header:
         >From: wesc@ichips.intel.com
         >Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 16:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
         >Subject: Rules Posting
         >X-Sequence: 1160
         Rule 436 does not have an Informative Title and thus seems
         not to be a Rule (Rule 319 and CFJ 29);
Whereas, the August Nomic Log is too long to be accepted by some
         file systems, notably the one on my computer,
         so that it is impossible for some players, notably myself,
         to verify on this Log, whether Proposal 436 had such an
         Informative Title and whether Rule 436 is a valid Rule;
Whereas, at present I can not verify whether 436 is a Rule or not;
Whereas, a CFJ that questions the legality of a particular Rule,
         must state such a Rule;
Therefore, on Friday 10 September, 10.30 GMT it was not possible
for me to determine if the action of invoking Judgement questioning
the legality of Rule 436 is legal or illegal.
------------
CFJ and Rules referenced:
CFJ 29 (Wes):
"The Title of a Proposal does not become part of the Rule, should that
Proposal Create or Amend a Rule."
Judgement: FALSE
319. Informative Titles for Proposals:
     Every Proposal submitted to the Speaker must be headed with a Title.
413.  Winning By Paradox:
      If the Rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if
      the legality of some action cannot be determined with finality, or if
      some action appears equally legal and illegal, then a player may Call
      For Judgement on a Statement to that effect.  If the Statement is
      judged TRUE, then the same Judge who judged the Statement TRUE must
      declare the most recent passed Proposal X such that the Statement was
      not TRUE before the passage of Proposal X, or declare that there is
      no such Proposal.  (Until the Judge does this, the Judgment is not
      valid.)  If the Judgement of TRUE is not overruled, then the Player
      who called for Judgement is declared the Winner of the game.

      When a Game ends by this manner and the Judge has declared that there
      is no such Proposal X, the game is ended, with no provisions for
      restarting it.

      When a Game ends by this manner and the Judge has declared such a
      Proposal X, the following actions are taken:
         - all Players remain active,
         - all Proposals curently being Voted upon are removed from
           consideration for Voting,
         - the scores for all Players are set to 0 (zero),
         - the Rules and explicit game custom are reverted to the state
           they were in before Proposal X was passed,
         - a Benevolent Speaker for the next Game is chosen:
              -If there is only one Winner, that Voter becomes the
               Benevolent Speaker, and the old Benevolent Speaker becomes a
               Voter,
              -If there is more than one Winner, the Benevolent Speaker
               randomly selects one of the Winners, who becomes the new
               Benevolent Speaker, and the old Benevolent Speaker becomes a
               Voter,
         - and a new Game is begun.
436. The Winner is the first Voter to achieve 200 (positive) Points.
     If more than one Voter achieves this condition simultaneously, all
     such Voters win.
     When a Game ends in this manner:
       -If there is only one Winner, that Voter becomes the Mighty
        Speaker and the old Venerated Speaker becomes a Voter.
       -If there is more than one Winner, the Voter with the highest
        Point total becomes the new Benevolent Speaker.  If more than
        one Voter is tied for the highest score, the Diligent Speaker
        randomly selects one of them to become the new Overworked
        Speaker.  The old Honored Speaker becomes a voter.
       -All Players' scores are reset to 0.
       -A new Game is begun.  All Rules and proposed Rule Changes
        retain the status they had at the end of the old Game.

JUDGE
Vlad <slagblah@acs.bu.edu>

{ Vlad declined, and Karl Anderson was appointed as replacement on
13/9/93. }

{ Karl failed to respond, was penalised 10 points, and was replaced by
Larry Smithmier on 16/9/93. }


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

This is how I find:  FALSE

Because:

>Whereas, the August Nomic Log is too long to be accepted by some 
>         file systems, notably the one on my computer, 
>         so that it is impossible for some players, notably myself, 
                        ^^^^^^^^^^
I find that is is not impossible to obtain information reguarding
Proposal 436.

Note the following:

>From:    MX%"nomic@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au" 
>To: SMITHMIERJR 
>CC:  
>Subj:    ATTENTION: Nomic Archivist 
>
>Return-Path: <nomic-request@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> 
>Received: from yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au by uamont.edu (MX V3.3 VAX) with SMTP; 
>          Thu, 16 Sep 1993 21:23:47 EDT 
>X-Sequence: 1457 
> 
> 
>As Judge of CFJ 31,  I request a copy of the Rule Set distributed with header 
>   >From: wesc@ichips.intel.com 
>   >Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 16:32:40 -0700 (PDT) 
>   >Subject: Rules Posting 
>   >X-Sequence: 1160 
> 
>and a copy of all CFJ, Appeals, and Judgements for the current game of Nomic. 
> 
>I realize that this is a lot of information and appoligize for the extra work. 
> 
>Thanks 
> 
>Larry Smithmier 
><smithmierjr@uamont.edu> 
> 
>#235        17-SEP-1993 03:11:12.20 MAIL 
>From:    MX%"KUNNE@frcpn11.in2p3.fr" 
>To: SMITHMIERJR 
>CC:  
>Subj:    Message 1160 
<*********************************stuff ommited************************>
>Dear Mr Judge, 
>
>here is the message you want. 
> 
>A log of all messages from one month may be obtained from the server.
>Send a message to: 
>listserv@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au 
>with an empty subject and in the body: 
>get nomic log9309 
>which will give you all of September 1993. 
> 
>Ronald 
>-------------------------------------------------------- 
>From: wesc@ichips.intel.com 
>Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 16:32:40 -0700 (PDT) 
>Subject: Rules Posting 
>X-Sequence: 1160 
> 
> 
>In accordance with Rule 399, we, in our capacity as Rulekeepor, do
hereby 
>post this, the current Rule Set: 
> 
>The Rulekeepor 
> 
>- -- 
>Wes Contreras            "All the world's a stage, and we are but the extras." 
>wesc@ichips.intel.com 
>  -- If I spoke for Intel, they'd pay me more money. 
> 
>**************************************************************** 
> 
>Current rules: 
> 
>Immutable Rules 
> 
>101.  All Players must always abide by all the Rules then in effect,
<**************stuff ommited******************> 
>435.  Spelling Errors: 
>      Spelling errors do not invalidate Rules if there is no 
>      ambiguity in meaning. 
>  
>436. The Winner is the first Voter to achieve 200 (positive) Points.
>     If more than one Voter achieves this condition simultaneously, all 
>     such Voters win. 
>     When a Game ends in this manner: 
>       -If there is only one Winner, that Voter becomes the Mighty 
>        Speaker and the old Venerated Speaker becomes a Voter. 
>       -If there is more than one Winner, the Voter with the highest
>        Point total becomes the new Benevolent Speaker.  If more than
>        one Voter is tied for the highest score, the Diligent Speaker
>        randomly selects one of them to become the new Overworked 
>        Speaker.  The old Honored Speaker becomes a voter. 
>       -All Players' scores are reset to 0. 
>       -A new Game is begun.  All Rules and proposed Rule Changes 
>        retain the status they had at the end of the old Game.