From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Sun Mar 12 18:34:46 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 SAA27607; Sun, 12 Mar 1995 18:34:44 -0600
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id QAA05702 for nomic-official-outgoing; Sun, 12 Mar 1995 16:40:15 -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 QAA05661 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Sun, 12 Mar 1995 16:40:05 -0800
Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0rnyB0-0001RfC; Sun, 12 Mar 95 19:40 EST
Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga)
	  id <2bd2@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Sun, 12 Mar 95 19:35:16 EST5
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 95 19:35:16 EST5
Message-Id: <9503130035.2bd2@poverty.bloomington.in.us>
From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin)
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Subject: OFF: Judgement of CFJ 751 (Rule 1438 can only be interpretated...)
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

======================================================================
			 JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 751
	       (Rule 1438 can only be interpretated...)
======================================================================

  Date:    13 Mar 1995 00:35 UTC

  Judgement:  FALSE

  Judge:   Steve

  Eligible to Judge:  
	Andre, Blob, Coren, Dave, Elde, Einstein, elJefe, Jeffrey,
	JonRock, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Oerjan, Pascal, Steve, Vlad

  Caller:  TAL

  Barred:  Swann, Vanyel, Chuck

  Scorekeepor:
    Steve receives 3 Points for timely Judgement

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

History:
  Called Thu, 09 Mar 95 18:06:52 WET by TAL
  Assigned Thu, 09 Mar 1995 22:15 UTC to Steve
  Judged TRUE Mon, 13 Mar 1995 11:08:08 +1100 (EST) by Steve
  --> Steve receives 3 Points

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

Statement:

"Rule 1438 can only be interpretated in such a way, that no Rule
can lead to a Punitive Point Loss"

Players barred: Swann, Vanyel, Chuck

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

Arguments:

Note: if Judged TRUE the Judge has the right to issue an Injonction,
to annotate Rule 1438.

Rule 1438 defines a Punitive Point Loss (PPL) in a negative way:
"Punitive Point Losses are those losses *not* due to:, etc."

One of the excluded losses is
" vii) Rules that also adjust the number of Blots a Player has."

Now suppose that a Rule X imposes a point loss on a Player and that
such a loss is not already covered by one of the other exceptions.

By 1438 that Player will then
"...receive Blots equal to half the number of Points lost, rounded
down."

Hence Rule X will in that case lead to an adjustment in the number of
Points a Player has.

But in that case Rule X falls under the exclusion clause vii) quoted above.
Consequently, that loss can not be a PPL.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

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

References:

Rule 1438/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Blots Due to a Punititve Point Loss

      A Punitive Point Loss is a point loss that results in gaining
      Blots.

      Whenever a Rule calls for a Punitive Point loss, the Player
      losing Points will receive Blots equal to half the number of
      Points lost, rounded down.

      Punitive Point Losses are those losses *not* due to:

         i) Voluntary transfers of Points to any other Player or any
            other Nomic Entity.
        ii) Voluntary destruction of a Player's own Points.
       iii) The outcome of a Vote on a Proposal
        iv) Adjustments made as part of a correction in the Game
            State.
         v) The reset of scores due to the end of a Game.
        vi) A score change that a Rule specifically designates as
            Non-Punitive.
       vii) Rules that also adjust the number of Blots a Player has.

      Further, a Point Loss ceases to be Punitive when the Rule
      mandating the Loss is amended to explicitly state either of the
      following:

         i) The Rule does not impose a Blot penalty.
        ii) The Rule does impose a Blot penalty, the amount of the
            Blot penalty, and the Player responsible for reporting
            those Blots to the Tabulator.

      Players Legally Responsible for reporting Punitive Point losses
      to the Scorekeepor also have the Legal Responsibility to report
      Blots due to those Punitive Point losses to the Tabulator.

      This Rule shall remain in effect until there are no longer any
      Punitive Point Losses defined in the Ruleset, at which point
      this Rule will repeal itself.

History:
Created by Proposal 1459, Mar. 1 1995

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

Judgment: FALSE

TAL makes a simple mistake in his argument, by neglecting to note
the force of the word "also" in clause (vii) in Rule 1438. This
clause states that "Punitive Point Losses are those losses *not*
due to ... (vii) Rules which *also* adjust the number of Blots a
Player has."

TAL's argument is that Rule 1438 itself falls under this description.
But this is not so; while Rule 1438 does adjust the Blots of Players,
it does not itself authorize any Punitive Point Losses. Hence it
it is not a Rule of the type specified in clause (vii).

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

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

    Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea--massive,
     difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
	 mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.
			    --Gene Spafford, 1992