Call for Judgement 35


> Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 17:01:27 -0500
> From: jsd@ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey S Davidson)
> Message-Id: <9309172201.AA24003@iies.ecn.purdue.edu>
> To: Alexx@world.std.com, cogen@ll.mit.edu
> Subject: Call for Judgement

> *************************************************************************
> Current rules:
>  
> 212.  If two or more Mutable Rules conflict with one another, or if
>       two or more Immutable Rules conflict with one another, then the Rule
>       with the lowest ordinal Number takes precedence.
>         If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of itself
>       that it defers to another Rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence
>       over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such provisions shall
>       supersede the numerical method for determining precedence.
>         If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or
>       defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.
>  
> 367.  Selection of Judges
>       When Judgment has been called for, a Judge is randomly selected
>       by the Benevolent Speaker from among the players, excluding
>       - the player who called for Judgment
>       - any player who is "involved" by the statement
>       Involvement of a Voter or the Mighty Speaker implied, if the
>       statement to be judged makes mention of one of the following:
>       - an action or inaction of that Voter or the Mighty Speaker
>       - a Rule mentioning the Mighty Speaker
>       - a Rule proposed by that voter
>       The player selected has 3 days in which to accept or refuse the
>       appointment by posting to the listserver. Any player who does not
>       respond to selection in 3 days shall be penalized 10 points, and is
>       deemed to have refused appointment.  If a selected player refuses
>       appointment, then a further random selection is made from the
>       remaining pool of players.
> 
> 
> 403.  Clarification of Amendments:
>       Any Proposal which Amends any Rule must:
> 
>       (i) explicitly state which Rule it is Amending, and
>       (ii) fully state the Amended form of that Rule.
> 
>       A Proposal which claims to amend a Rule, but does not fully state the
>       Amended form of that Rule is not a valid Proposal, and must not be
>       accepted by the Mighty Speaker, nor voted upon.
> 
> 406.  Clerk of the Courts, Part I: Definition of Office:
>       There shall exist an Office "Clerk of the Courts", who shall have
>       general responsibility over administering Calls for Judgement, as
>       outlined in the Rules.  The active Clerk of the Court may never be
>       selected as a Judge.
> 
>       As a salary for carrying out his duties, he will receive 5 points at
>       the end of every seven days he is in Office, counting from his
>       assumption of the Office.
> 
>       The initial holder of this Office shall be the Player who submitted
>       this Proposal.
> 
> 407.  Clerk of the Courts, Part II: Invoking Judgement:
>       If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the
>       interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may invoke
>       Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the Clerk of the
>       Courts.  Disagreement, for the purposes of this Rule, may be created
>       by the insistence of any Player.  When Judgement is invoked, the
>       Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as
>       described in the Rules.  The Clerk of the Courts must then distribute
>       the Statement to be judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to
>       all Players.
> 
> 410.  Clerk of the Courts, Part V: Selecting a Judge:
>       When Judgement has been called for, a Judge is randomly selected by
>       the Clerk of the Courts from among the eligible Players (excluding
>       the Player who called for Judgement). The Player selected has 3 days
>       in which to accept or refuse the appointment by posting to the
>       listserv.  Any Player who does not respond to selection in 3 days
>       shall be penalized 10 points, and is deemed to have refused
>       appointment.  If a selected Player refuses appointment, then a
>       further random selection is made from the remaining pool.
> ***************************************************************************
> 
> Citing the above pertinent rules, I hereby request a Call for Judgement
> on whether the Clerk of the Courts may appoint Judges because of a 
> conflict in the Rules, per Rule 212.
> 
> Justification:  Rule 367 states a Judge is randomly selected from the
> players by the Benevolent Speaker.
> 		Rule 403 states that an amendment must "explicitly state"
> the rule it is amending and the ammended form of same rule.
> 		Rule 406 gives only "general responsibility for
> administering."
> 		Rule 407 says that the Clerk of the Courts must select
> a Judge.
> 		Rule 410 describes a process for selecting judges by
> the Clerk of the Courts.
> 		
> While there are rules that further describe some duties of the CotC, they
> do not state any authority over Rule 367.  I would argue that the 
> general responsibility includes keeping records of CFJs, including
> record of who has and has not responded to act as Judge, and even (408)
> distributing the statement to be judged and identity of the judge.
> It does not give the Clerk the power to appoint Judges though.

The Judge for CFJ 35 shall be:
David Wagner <dgwagner@math.uwaterloo.ca>

{ David Wagner defaulted on 1/10/93 and was replaced by Chuck Carrol
on the same day. }

Judgement: UNDECIDED

-----

Justification:

This is not a statement to be judged TRUE or FALSE (unless the intent
is for me to judge whether the submitter really does request a CFJ
or not ;).  COTC MAY APPOINT JUDGES and COTC MAY NOT APPOINT JUDGES
are not valid Judgements.  Rule 407 states that judgement is invoked
by submitting a statement--*not* a subordinate clause.

The point is now moot, as 367 has been repealed.  If it were not,
I would recommend submitting the CFJ in a more appropriate form.