From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Mon Mar 27 05:17:40 1995
Return-Path: nomic-official-owner@teleport.com
Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id FAA15556; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 05:17:37 -0600
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id DAA20443 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 03:23:10 -0800
Received: from mizar.astro.indiana.edu (mizar.astro.indiana.edu [129.79.160.43]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA20433 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 03:23:05 -0800
Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0rtCsv-0001UgC; Mon, 27 Mar 95 06:23 EST
Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga)
	  id <2hui@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Mon, 27 Mar 95 06:12:13 EST5
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 95 06:12:13 EST5
Message-Id: <9503271112.2hui@poverty.bloomington.in.us>
From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin)
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Subject: OFF: Final Judgement of CFJ 750
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

======================================================================
		      FINAL JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 750
	       (Speaker ElJefe violated Rule 452 by...)
======================================================================

  Final Judgement:  UNKNOWN

  Judgement of the Clerk of the Courts:  UNKNOWN
  Judgement of the Speaker:		 FALSE
  Judgement of the Justiciar:		 TRUE

  Clerk of the Courts:  Kelly
  Speaker:		elJefe		Delegate:  TAL
  Justiciar:		Steve

  Judgement:  TRUE

  Judge:   Chuck

  Eligible to Judge: 
	   Andre, Blob, Dave Bowen, Coren, Chuck, Elde, Einstein,
	   Jeffrey, JonRock, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Pascal, Steve,
	   Swann, TAL, Vanyel, Vlad

  Caller:  Oerjan

  Barred:  elJefe

  Scorekeepor:
    Chuck receives 3 Points for timely Judgement
    elJefe receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement
    Steve receives 3 Points for timely Judgement
    Kelly receives 3 Points for timely Judgement
    Chuck must forfeit 3 Points for being overturned

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

History:
  Called Tue, 7 Mar 1995 19:19:02 +0100 (MET) by Oerjan
  Assigned Tue, 7 Mar 1995 19:10 UTC to Chuck
  Judged TRUE Sat, 11 Mar 95 19:40:52 CST by Chuck
  --> Chuck receives 3 Points
  Appealed Sun, 12 Mar 1995 09:39:41 -0800 (PST) by Coren
  Appealed Mon, 13 Mar 95 14:26:43 WET by TAL
  Appealed Wed, 22 Mar 1995 01:46:26 -0500 by Swann
  Assigned Wed, 22 Mar 1995 09:15 UTC to Kelly as CotC
  Assigned Wed, 22 Mar 1995 09:15 UTC to Steve as Justiciar
  Assigned Thu, 23 Mar 1995 01:50 UTC to TAL as pro-Speaker
  Judged FALSE Thu, 23 Mar 95 18:59:35 WET by TAL as pro-Speaker
  --> elJefe receives 5 Points 
  Judged TRUE Mon, 27 Mar 1995 10:16:32 +1000 (EST) by Steve as Justiciar
  --> Steve receives 3 Points
  Judged UNKNOWN Mon, 27 Mar 95 06:08:32 EST5 by Kelly as CotC
  --> Kelly receives 3 Points
  --> Chuck loses 3 Points

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

Statement:

"Speaker ElJefe violated Rule 452 by sending individual Vote Reminders to 
the Voters who had not yet voted on Proposals then up for Vote."

I Bar ElJefe from judging this.

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

Arguments:

Clearly this act utilised the Speaker's knowledge of the standing of
the Votes. It's intent was to encourage players to vote, thereby
influencing the amount of Votes cast.

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

References:

Rule 452/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
No Electioneering by the Speaker

      The Speaker may not use eis knowledge of the current status of a
      vote on a Proposal in an attempt to influence the result of the
      Vote on that Proposal.

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

Judgment: TRUE

I Judge this statement to be TRUE.

If Rule 452 did not include the words "in an attempt," I would
judge this statement TRUE without reservation, since it is clear that
1) elJefe sent separate voting reminders out to Players who had not yet
voted, and 2) it is possible that these may have influenced the
vote.

But because Rule 452 *does* include the words "in an attempt," another
question is raised, namely, was elJefe *attempting* to influence
the vote?  Or would any such influence, if it occurred, have been
entirely unintentional?  It is impossible for me to know with
certainty elJefe's intent; but it seems very unlikely that such a
reminder could have been sent for any other purpose than encouraging
Players who had not yet voted to vote.  Thus, I still Judge TRUE,
but with somewhat more reluctance than I would have otherwise.

The Rules are not clear on how certain one must be of a TRUE or FALSE
Judgement to make it.  While I am not 100ertain that this statement
is TRUE, I am fairly certain.  There is certainly a case to be
made for UNDECIDED (or, if 1487 passes, UNKNOWN) on the basis that
no one but elJefe can know elJefe's intent with certainty, and
thus it cannot be known if elJefe attempted to influence the Vote.
I encourage elJefe to appeal this decision.  In fact, I hereby call
for appeal on the Judgement of CFJ 750.

[[Note of the CotC: Chuck's attempt to Call for Appeal is not binding,
as it was not posted to the Public Forum, at least not by himself.]]

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

Judgement of the pro-Speaker:  FALSE

Arguments:

Rule 452 states:
"The Speaker may not use eis knowledge of the current status of a
 vote on a Proposal in an attempt to influence the result of the
 Vote on that Proposal."

In order to establish the violation of Rule 452 the following
two questions must be answered with yes.

1) Did ElJefe attempt to influence the Voting Result by sending out
     individual voting reminders to Players which had not yet voted?

The result of a vote depends on two factors:
- the ratio of FOR and AGAINST votes
- the number of Players that voted

The only way that Speaker ElJefe can try to change a positive
F-A into a negative one (or vice versa) is by an approach of a
limited number of Players, namely those Players that are likely to
sway that result.

Judge TAL:
  when you sent out these infamous individual vote reminders,
  did you send this message to all Players who hadn't yet voted
  or only to a subset of those?

Suspect ElJefe:
  With regards to the individual voting reminders referred to in CFJ 750,
  I sent one to each player who had not voted.

Hence ElJefe did clearly not attempt to influence the F/A result.
On the other hand, it is also clear that sending a Voting Reminder to
each Player who had not voted is an attempt to change the number
of Players that voted.

Hence the answer on Question 1) is yes.

2) Did ElJefe use his knowledge of the status of the vote when he did so?

The fact that ElJefe's messages influenced the number of Voters,
only influences the result if Quorum on the Proposals had not yet
been reached. But that is not enough. We also ought to establish
that ElJefe *knew* that Quorum had not yet been reached.

Judge TAL:
  when you sent these messages, were there any Proposals for
  which Quorum had not yet been reached?

Suspect ElJefe:
  This was not in my mind at the time.  However, I recall that the Quorum
  was 10.  I don't remember exactly how many were sent, but I have a
  feeling that it was more than 10, which would mean that Quorum was
  not reached on the Proposals then up for vote.

Therefore, although ElJefe deduces today, that Quorum had not been
reached, he did not realise that when he send out his messages.

Hence, ElJefe did not use his knowledge of the Vote Status when
he attempted to influence the Vote.

Consequently, I judge NOT GUILTY, oops, FALSE.

References:
1) Rule 452
2) Message from Speaker ElJefe.

===
Rule 452/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
No Electioneering by the Speaker

      The Speaker may not use eis knowledge of the current status of a
      vote on a Proposal in an attempt to influence the result of the
      Vote on that Proposal.

===
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 95 11:33:42 EST
From: jlc@triple-i.com (Jeff Caruso)
Message-Id: <9503231633.AA09889@Camex.COM>
To: KUNNE@cernvm.cern.ch
Subject: Re:  CFJ 750

> Salut ElJefe,

Greetings.  Thanks for the courtesy of taking my evidence.


> 1) when you sent out these infamous individual vote reminders,
> did you send this message to all Players who hadn't yet voted
> or only to a subset of those?

With regards to the individual voting reminders referred to in CFJ 750,
I sent one to each player who had not voted.


> 2) when you sent these messages, were there any Proposals for
> which Quorum had not yet been reached?

This was not in my mind at the time.  However, I recall that the Quorum
was 10.  I don't remember exactly how many were sent, but I have a
feeling that it was more than 10, which would mean that Quorum was
not reached on the Proposals then up for vote.

Regards,
- elJefe

******************************************************************
  Dr. Jeffrey L. Caruso <jlc@triple-i.com>
  Information International

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

Judgement of the Justiciar:  TRUE

I uphold Chuck's original Judgement and Judge that the Statement is TRUE.

Since the Statement implicitly ascribes certain motives to Eljefe in
acting as he did, I sought and obtained clarification from Eljefe as
to what his motives were. A copy of our communication is included below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Jeff,

Before I make my Judgement in the Appeal of CFJ 750, I would like 
confirmation from you personally that I have not misunderstood the
facts surrounding the case. Therefore I would like to put to you
that understanding and allow you to respond. Please feel free to
correct any errors or omissions, or add any comments. Please also
be aware that this communication may appear as evidence in my
Judgement.

The Statement alleges that you used your knowledge of the progress
of voting on a Proposal to influence the result on that Proposal,
by sending voting reminders specifically to Players whom you knew 
had not yet voted. As far as I am aware, you have not denied that
this is substantially the case. Is this in fact an accurate
description of what happened? 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings, Steve.  I appreciate your courtesy in taking my evidence.

> The Statement alleges that you used your knowledge of the progress
> of voting on a Proposal to influence the result on that Proposal,
> by sending voting reminders specifically to Players whom you knew 
> had not yet voted. As far as I am aware, you have not denied that
> this is substantially the case. Is this in fact an accurate
> description of what happened? 

The facts in the above statement are correct, the only thing subject to
judgement or interpretation is the construction to be placed upon my
motives, as the Rule makes it illegal to use such knowledge in an "attempt"
to influence the result.

As I stated originally, I did use my knowledge of the vote, in order
to identify those who had not yet voted.  My intent was (at the time)
to encourage voter turnout, so that whatever result was returned would
be most likely the will of the Agorans.  I sent the individual reminders
to all and only those Voters who had not yet voted at the time.

I can see that Chuck decided that the only reason for doing this was an
"attempt to influence the result of the voting", but he didn't give any
reasoning or evidence for this conclusion, and that wasn't the way I saw 
it at the time.

It is possible, however, that I was wrong.  Certainly it would have been
more prudent to send individual reminders to everyone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Eljefe admits that he did use his knowledge of the vote in order to
identify those who had not yet voted; he then sent reminders to those
Players in attempt to get them to vote. Since if this attempt were
successful then the result of the vote would be altered, and since
Eljefe knew this to be the case, I am satisfied that in acting as he
did, Eljefe did use his knowledge of the vote in an attempt to
influence the result of the vote, and hence that his action was a
violation of Rule 452 within the strict meaning of that Rule.
However, I do want to emphasize that I don't think that Eljefe is
guilty of anything more than a minor misdemeanour, and that it was
clearly committed in good faith and with good intentions.


Steve Gardner                     |  "Justice? You get justice in the next
Dept. of Philosophy, Monash Uni.  |   world, in this world you get the law."
gardner@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au   |          --  William Gaddis --

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

Judgement of the Clerk of the Courts:  UNKNOWN

I Judge this CFJ to be UNKNOWN.  I am taking the liberty of
referencing the evidence TAL obtained (which appears in his Judgement,
already submitted to the Court) by questioning elJefe directly about
the circumstances surrounding the events in question.  Unlike TAL,
however, I feel that the evidence available to me, as a Judge, is
insufficient to provide compelling proof for a finding of either TRUE
or FALSE, and I further believe that there is no way that sufficient
evidence can be obtained that would compel a Judgement of either TRUE
or FALSE.  Clearly the Statement is not such that it engenders a
paradox, so a finding of UNDECIDABLE is not permitted, by Rule 591/2.
My only remaining legal Judgement is therefore UNKNOWN, and I enter my
finding as such.

Kelly Martin
Clerk of the Courts

======================================================================
--
kelly martin                                 <kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us>

       I have been told that when a large group of people believe in a
     fantasy, it is called a culture.  When a small group believes, it is
      called a cult.  When two people believe in a fantasy, it is called
	 love; and when one person believes, it is called psychosis.