From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Mon Mar 20 21:34:07 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 VAA04882; Mon, 20 Mar 1995 21:33:52 -0600
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id TAA00639 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 1995 19:37:48 -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 TAA00578 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Mon, 20 Mar 1995 19:37:29 -0800
Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0rqul3-0001U1C; Mon, 20 Mar 95 22:37 EST
Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga)
	  id <2ert@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Mon, 20 Mar 95 22:34:47 EST5
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 95 22:34:47 EST5
Message-Id: <9503210334.2ert@poverty.bloomington.in.us>
From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin)
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Subject: OFF: Final Judgement of CFJ 752
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

======================================================================
		      FINAL JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 752
	(Rule 911 should be interpreted such that CFJ 750...)
======================================================================

  Date:    Thu, 16 Mar 1995 15:40 UTC

  Final Judgement:  FALSE

  Judgement of the Clerk of the Courts:  UNDECIDED (*)
  Judgement of the Speaker:		 FALSE
  Judgement of the Justiciar:		 FALSE

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

  Judgement:  FALSE

  Judge:   Swann

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

  Caller:  Chuck

  Barred:  Kelly

  Scorekeepor:
    Swann receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement
    Steve receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement
    elJefe receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement
    Kelly receives 3 Points for timely Judgement

(*) Note:  Judgement of UNDECIDED is permissible because this CFJ
    was made before Rule 591 was amended by Proposal 1487.

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

History:
  Called Mon, 13 Mar 95 10:43:01 CST by Chuck
  Assigned Mon, 13 Mar 1995 19:40 UTC to Swann
  Judged FALSE Tue, 14 Mar 1995 08:00:42 -0500 by Swann
  --> Swann receives 5 Points
  Appealed Tue, 14 Mar 1995 11:42:11 -0800 (PST) by Coren
  Appealed Tue, 14 Mar 1995 14:35:41 -0600 by Chuck
  Appealed Thu, 16 Mar 95 12:36:58 MET by Andre
  Assigned Thu, 16 Mar 1995 14:25 UTC to Steve as Justiciar
  Assigned Thu, 16 Mar 1995 14:25 UTC to elJefe as Speaker
  Assigned Thu, 16 Mar 1995 15:40 UTC to TAL as pro-CotC
  Judged FALSE Fri, 17 Mar 1995 18:54:45 +1100 (EST) by Steve as Justiciar
  --> Steve receives 5 Points
  Judged FALSE Fri, 17 Mar 95 10:13:38 EST by elJefe as Speaker
  --> elJefe receives 5 Points
  Judged UNDECIDED Mon, 20 Mar 95 21:26:54 WET by TAL as pro-CotC
  --> Kelly receives 3 Points

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

Statement:

"Rule 911 should be interpreted such that CFJ 750 has been
successfully appealed."

Relevant Rules: 911, 478, 591, 408

Injunction: I do not request an Injunction with this CFJ.  However,
Rule 789 still requires me to provide a list of Relevant Rules; and
if the Judge Judges TRUE, e is permitted to issue an Injunction in
accordance with Rule 789.

I bar Kelly from Judging this statement.

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

Arguments:

Rule 911 states that a Judgement is appealed upon the insistence
of three Players to the Public Forum.  Coren and TAL have posted
their calls for appeal directly to nomic-business, which constitutes
the Public Forum.  (I can find no explicit evidence that Distributor
Coren has defined nomic-business as the Public Forum; however, the
info message with nomic-business states that all Players are required
to be subscribed to it, which I take as definition as the Public
Forum.  The same applies to nomic-offical.)

It is the third Player's "insistence"--mine--which is primarily
under dispute.  I included it in my Reasons and Arguments on my Judgement
of CFJ 750 which was not posted directly by me to the Public Forum; it was
sent to COTC Kelly.  Kelly then posted it to (and was required to post
it to) the Public Forum.  (She is required to send it to all Players,
by Rules 408 and 591; by Rule 478, this constitutes the Public Forum.)

Does this indirect posting to the Public Forum, by me through Kelly,
constitute "insistence to the Public Forum?"  I believe it does.
There is nothing in the Rules to suggest the path something takes
to the defined lists affects whether or not it is posted to the
Public Forum.  Some mail messages may go through several nodes
before reaching teleport.com, but no one would suggest that
they are not posted to the Public Forum because they did not go
to teleport.com first.  Similarly, my insistence was sent to
the Public Forum, only through the COTC.

I also believe Game Custom supports me on this.  There was a time
when the Distributor list was handled manually.  Yet no one suggested
that something was not sent to the Public Forum because it was sent
to the Distributor first.  (And note the Distributor Rule only provides
an exception when something is to be sent to all Players, not when
something is to be sent to the Public Forum.)

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

References:

1.  Rule 911
2.  Rule 478
3.  Rule 591
4.  Rule 408
5.  Rule 796
6.  COTC Kelly's post of the Judgement of CFJ 750, including my Reasons
    and Arguments and my call for Appeal
7.  Coren's call for Appeal
8.  TAL's call for Appeal
9.  info message for nomic-official
10. info message for nomic-business



======1.  Rule 911

Rule 911/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
Appealing Judgement

      A Judgement may be Appealed upon the insistence of any three
      Players to the Public Forum.

      If a Judgement is successfully Appealed, the Justices shall each
      Judge the Statement as if they were Judges.  They may confer
      with each other on the case before delivering Judgement if they
      desire.  If a Justice should fail to return Judgement in the
      allotted time, e shall be fined three Points for each day by
      which e missed the deadline.  This fine shall be levied by the
      Scorekeepor.

      If a majority of the Justices' Judgements agree, the Statement
      shall be considered to have been Judged accordingly.  Otherwise,
      it shall be considered to have been ruled UNDECIDED.  The
      Justices' reasoning and arguments shall be recorded with the
      original CFJ.

      Once a Judgement has been made, the Justices may make
      Injunctions just as may Judges, provided a majority of them
      agree.

      The decision of the Justices is final; no further Appeal of that
      Statement may be made.

      If the decision of the original Judge of the Statement is
      changed by the Justices, the Judge shall forfeit the
      compensation e received for judging.
      (*Was: 690*)

History:
..
Amended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994



=====2.  Rule 478

Rule 478/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
The Public Forum

      The Public Forum is any medium defined by the Distributor as
      such.  If a Rule requires that a message is send to the Public
      Forum, then a message send to all Active Players fulfills this
      requirement as well"

History:
..
Amended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995



=====3.  Rule 591

Rule 591/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
Legal Judgements

      A legal Judgement is either TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDED. The
      Judgement must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which
      include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations of
      deciding Rules, past Judgements, and game custom. A Judgement
      delivered without reasons and/or arguments is completely
      invalid.

      Such reasons and arguments form no part of the Judgement itself.
      However, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the reasons and
      arguments along with the Judgement.

      Any evidence which is used to justify the Judgement, other than
      appeals to Game Custom or to common sense, must be presented by
      the Judge.  If the Judge introduces evidence beyond that
      submitted in the Call for Judgement, e must include this
      evidence in eir Judgement.  All such added evidence must be
      distributed as part of the reasons and arguments by the Clerk of
      the Courts.

History:
..
Amended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994



=====4.  Rule 408

Rule 408/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
Accepting Judge-ship

      After the Clerk of the Courts has distributed the Statement to
      be judged and the identity of the Judge, the Judge has one week
      in which to deliver a legal Judgement.  If the Judge fails to
      deliver a Judgement within this time, e is penalized 10 points
      and the CotC randomly selects another Judge from among eligible
      Players.  A Judgement is delivered by submitting that Judgement
      to the Clerk of the Courts, who must then distribute that
      Judgement to all Players as soon as possible.

History:
..
Amended(1) by Proposal 1383, Jan. 17 1995



=====5.  Rule 796

Rule 796/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
The Distributor

      There shall be an Office known as the Distributor. Whenever the
      Rules state that anything must be sent to all Players, they
      may instead be sent to the Distributor with some indication
      that they should be forwarded to all Players. The Distributor
      shall then send this message to all Players as soon as possible
      and in the order recieved. The first  Distributor shall be Wes.
      This Rule shall take precedence over all Rules which require a
      Player to send something to all Players.
      (*Was: 510*)



=====6.  COTC Kelly's post of the Judgement of CFJ 750

Received: from desiree.teleport.com by audumla.students.wisc.edu;
          id UAA07812; 8.6.9W/42; Sat, 11 Mar 1995 20:31:49 -0600
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id SAA19575 for nomic-official-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 1995 18:31:24 -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 SAA19526 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Sat, 11 Mar 1995 18:31:11 -0800
Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp
 (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0rndQz-0001RVC; Sat, 11 Mar 95 21:31 EST
Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga)
   id <2b0i@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Sat, 11 Mar 95 21:30:20 EST5
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 95 21:30:20 EST5
Message-Id: <9503120230.2b0i@poverty.bloomington.in.us>
From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin)
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Subject: OFF: Judgement of CFJ 750 (Speaker ElJefe violated Rule 452...)
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com

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

  Date:    12 Mar 1995 02:30 UTC

  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

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

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

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

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.]]

======================================================================
--
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



=====7.  Coren's call for Appeal

Received: from desiree.teleport.com by audumla.students.wisc.edu;
          id LAA16800; 8.6.9W/42; Sun, 12 Mar 1995 11:39:58 -0600
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id JAA06711 for nomic-business-outgoing; Sun, 12 Mar 1995 09:39:47 -0800
Received: from linda.teleport.com (coren@linda.teleport.com [192.108.254.12]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA06706 for <nomic-business@teleport.com>; Sun, 12 Mar 1995 09:39:44 -0800
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 09:39:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Gary Heavysege <coren@teleport.com>
To: nomic-business@teleport.com,
        Kelly Martin <kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us>
Subject: BUS: Honourable COTC:
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950312093445.28598A-100000@linda.teleport.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-nomic-business@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com

This is getting interesting, and needs to be resolved...

Please accept my Appeal of CFJ 750.

I don't have real strong feelings one way or the other, but I'd like to
see both whether elJefe actually is at fault, *and* whether Chuck, by
sending his Appeal as part of a message he knew with full certainty would 
be posted to the Public Forum, actually did so.

Coren

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            -- Gary Heavysege --
  Internet: coren@teleport.com, coren@suuper.suu.edu, gheavysege@delphi.com
finger -l for PGP Public Key: 78 38 2B F8 EC CF 7E 55  A7 75 C3 9D 11 1D 00 AC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------



=====8.  TAL's call for Appeal

Received: from desiree.teleport.com by audumla.students.wisc.edu;
          id HAA56864; 8.6.9W/42; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 07:31:48 -0600
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id FAA26354 for nomic-business-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 05:31:36 -0800
Received: from CEARN.cern.ch (cearn.cern.ch [128.141.2.9]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id FAA26343 for <nomic-business@TELEPORT.COM>; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 05:31:31 -0800
Message-Id: <199503131331.FAA26343@desiree.teleport.com>
Received: from CERNVM.CERN.CH by CEARN.cern.ch (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 4043; Mon, 13 Mar 95 14:29:56 SET
Received: from CERNVM.cern.ch (NJE origin KUNNE@CERNVM) by CERNVM.CERN.CH
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8834; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 14:28:09 +0100
Date:         Mon, 13 Mar 95 14:26:43 WET
From: KUNNE@CERNVM.cern.ch
Subject:      BUS: Appeal of CFJ 750
To: nomic-business@teleport.com
Sender: owner-nomic-business@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com


In order to allow Chuck to CFJ on the legality of his own Appeal,
I herewith Appeal CFJ 750.

Let it be known that this doesn't mean I disagree with the Judgment.

TAL



=====9.  info message for nomic-official

>>>> info nomic-official
[Last updated on: Fri Dec  2  1:21:32 1994]

Welcome to Agora Nomic and the nomic-official mailing list !!!
--------------------------------------------------------------

SUBSCRIPTION TO THIS LIST IS REQUIRED OF ALL PLAYERS!

This list is for Agora Nomic official messages and reports,
as required of the duly appointed Officers by the Agora Nomic
Rules, **ONLY**. Please - all messages to this list must be
clearly marked as being from a specific Officer.

Please post questions or corrections regarding messages on
this list, or any other official business related messages to
"nomic-business@teleport.com"  Please post ALL OTHER messages
to "nomic-discussion@teleport.com".

PLEASE - DO NOT ABUSE THIS LIST BY POSTING INELIGIBLE MESSAGES!!!

This system is designed to allow people with limited time or resources
to play Agora Nomic while receiving the absolute minimum number of
messages necessary to know what is going on.  Be courteous and check
your message headers!

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

Subscription to "nomic-business@teleport.com" and the Agora Nomic
backup list, "nomic@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au" is also required of all
Players.  Send a message to "listserv@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au" with
no Subject: and a body of "SUBSCRIBE NOMIC yourfirstname yourlastname"
to subscribe to the backup list.

To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to "Majordomo@
teleport.com" with no Subject: and a body of "unsubscribe
nomic-official".

Please send any other questions or comments to "coren@teleport.com".

Thank you!

Agora Nomic Distributor Coren



=====10. info message for nomic-business

>>>> info nomic-business
[Last updated on: Fri Dec  2  1:21:33 1994]

Welcome to Agora Nomic and the nomic-business mailing list !!!
--------------------------------------------------------------

SUBSCRIPTION TO THIS LIST IS REQUIRED OF ALL PLAYERS!

This list is for Agora Nomic business-related messages, *ONLY*.
This includes official questions and/or corrections in reply to
messages posted to "nomic-official" by officers, official messages
from Officers which are not otherwise required by the Rules, and
messages from Players which the Rules require be posted either to
"the Public Forum", "all Players", or some other form of general
communication. Included in this catagory are point and currency
transfers between Players, On and Off Hold announcements, Office
transfers, and all other messages of a "semi-official" or Rules-
required nature that are not appropriate for posting in "nomic-
official".  THIS LIST AND "NOMIC-OFFICIAL" ARE DESIGNATED TO MEET
ALL SUCH PURPOSES BY THE AGORA NOMIC DISTRIBUTOR, AND ARE THE *ONLY*
MEDIUMS SO DESIGNATED.  All messages to this list must be clearly
marked as being from a specific Player; no completely anonymous
messages are allowed.

For the moment, messages containing only "proto-proposals", and
clearly marked as such, should ALSO be directed to this list,
barring any objections from Players who would rather see such
directed to nomic-discussion.

ALL OTHER messages which are unrelated to Agora Nomic, or which are
purely of a discussionary nature, INCLUDING discussion of current
Proposals and proto-proposals, and any questions regarding messages
posted to "nomic-official" or "nomic-business" which are NOT of an
official nature should be posted to "nomic-discussion@teleport.com".

PLEASE - DO NOT ABUSE THIS LIST BY POSTING INELIGIBLE MESSAGES!!!

This system is designed to allow people with limited time or resources
to play Agora Nomic while receiving the absolute minimum number of
messages necessary to know what is going on.  Be courteous and check
your message headers!

Please post questions or corrections regarding messages on
this list, or any other official business related messages to
"nomic-business@teleport.com"  Please post ALL OTHER messages
to "nomic-discussion@teleport.com".

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

Subscription to "nomic-official@teleport.com" and the Agora Nomic
backup list, "nomic@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au" is also required of all
Players.  Send a message to "listserv@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au" with
no Subject: and a body of "SUBSCRIBE NOMIC yourfirstname yourlastname"
to subscribe to the backup list.

To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to "Majordomo@
teleport.com" with no Subject: and a body of "unsubscribe
nomic-business".

Please send any other questions or comments to "coren@teleport.com".

Thank you!

Agora Nomic Distributor Coren

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

Judgment: FALSE

Relevant Rules: 911, 478, 591, 408, 910, 991, 662, 789


Arguments:

In order to determine the question at hand we must define exactly what 
Rule 911/1 requires before a CFJ is Appealed.  The relevant sentence is:

     "A Judgement may be Appealed upon the insistence of any three
      Players to the Public Forum."

For the moment I'll ignore the phrase "A Judgement may be Appealed."  
I'll get back to it at the end of my statement.

First, it needs to be settled what the phrase "insistence of any three 
Players to the Public Forum" actually means.

Now, it is true that the grammar of this sentence could be interpreted 
so that the phrase "to the Public Forum" is referring to "Appealed."  
This interpretation means that there are no explicit strictures, or even 
definition, of a Player's "insistence."

I think, however, that Game Custom supports interpreting this phrase to 
refer to the "Player's insistence."  Also, Game Custom also supports 
interpreting "Player's insistence" as a message explicitly calling for 
an Appeal.

So it is this Judge's opinion that the phrase:
   "insistence of any three Players to the Public Forum"
When filtered through the lens of Game Custom, means:
   "three messages in the Public Forum, from three different Players, 
    calling for an Appeal."

I quote from Chuck's Arguments:

     "[...] Coren and TAL have posted their calls for appeal directly to 
      nomic-business, which constitutes the Public Forum.  (I can find 
      no explicit evidence that Distributor Coren has defined nomic-
      business as the Public Forum; however, the info message with 
      nomic-business states that all Players are required to be 
      subscribed to it, which I take as definition as the Public Forum.  
      The same applies to nomic-offical.)"

This is a valid appeal to Game Custom, which is that nomic-business and
nomic-official are currently the Public Forum when no other definition 
exists.  However, even if Distributor had no such Public Forum defined 
when this question occurred, Rule 478/1  states:

     "If a Rule requires that a message is send to the Public
      Forum, then a message send to all Active Players fulfills this
      requirement as well."

Since nomic-business is required to be subscribed to by all Players, it 
is the Public Forum outside any statement by the Distributor, or at 
least as long as the Distributor does not specifically exclude it as 
such.  [At this point the Judge would like to call attention to a tense 
error in 478/1, "send" should be "sent."]

It is therefore clear that Coren and TAL, by posting directly to nomic-
business, fulfilled the requirements (such as they are) of 911/1.  The 
messages from Coren and TAL consist of two valid "insistences."

What remains is Chuck's own "insistence."

Again, I quote from Chuck's arguments:

     "[...] I included [my insistence] in my Reasons and Arguments on my 
      Judgement of CFJ 750 which was not posted directly by me to the 
      Public Forum; it was sent to COTC Kelly.  Kelly then posted it to 
      [...] the Public Forum.  (She is required to send it to all 
      Players, by Rules 408  and 591 ; by Rule 478, this constitutes the 
      Public Forum.)"

It is clear, even without recourse to Common Sense, that Chuck has a 
very valid point here.  The re-formulated version of Rule 478, as quoted 
above, defines *any* message sent [send] to "all Active Players" as the
"Public Forum."

Chuck:

     "I included [my insistence] in my Reasons and Arguments on my
      Judgement of CFJ 750"

Rule 408/1:

     "A Judgement is delivered by submitting that Judgement
      to the Clerk of the Courts, who must then distribute that
      Judgement to all Players as soon as possible."

Rule 591/1:

     "Such reasons and arguments form no part of the Judgement itself.
      However, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the reasons and
      arguments along with the Judgement."

It is obvious that,  because the CotC is required by the rules to send a 
Judgement to "all Players," and that Judgement must also be accompanied 
by the "reasons and arguments," then any message included in the 
"reasons and arguments" is being sent to the "Public Forum" as defined 
by 478/1.  Therefore Chuck has sent a valid "insistence," fulfilling the 
three insistence requirement of rule 911/1.

Which brings us back to the question at hand:

     "Rule 911 should be interpreted such that CFJ 750 has been
      successfully appealed."

There is a problem here, and that problem is the phrase "successfully 
appealed."

Specifically, was it legal for Kelly, as the CotC, to refuse to accept 
Chuck's insistence, even if it *was* properly made to the Public Forum?
I quote Kelly's message of Sun, 12 Mar 95 02:34:51 EST5:

     "i continue to hold that your privately-expressed insistence upon
      appeal is not binding upon me."

If it is legal for Kelly to do this, then the Appeal would certainly not 
be "successful."

If the question had been:

     "Rule 911 should be interpreted such that CFJ 750 has been 
      appealed."

I would have no problem, relying on Game Custom, in judging this CFJ as 
TRUE.

However, Chuck's introduction of 911's language into the question forces 
me to consider what the phrase "successfully appealed" actually means. 
The rub is in the phase I alluded to earlier, "A Judgement may be 
Appealed upon..."  It doesn't say a "A Judgement will be Appealed by..." 
or "A Judgement must be Appealed by..." or even, "A Judgement is 
Appealed in the following manner..."

In fact, the phrasing of that first sentence, "A Judgement may be 
Appealed upon the insistence of any three Players to the Public Forum,"
even when filtered through Game Custom and Common Sense, does not-- I 
repeat, does *not*-- imply that three insistences are a necessary and 
sufficient condition for a CFJ to be Appealed.

The word "may" says that the CFJ also "may *not*" be appealed.  Three 
insistences to the Public Forum only allows this decision to be made.  
The fact that this decision has always been in the affirmative 
beforehand does not change the language of the Rule.

Worse, the word "upon" implies that it is not the three insisting 
Players who are doing the Appealing!

It is clear that, once three insistences are made, a further step-- 
beyond the three insistences-- must be taken for an CFJ to be 
successfully Appealed.  Following 911/1 language to decipher what is 
happening leads me to the following conclusions:

   1) Three insistences to the Public Forum allow, but does not require,
      a CFJ to be Appealed.

   2) Some Entity that is not the three insisting Players has the power 
      to Appeal the CFJ.

   3) This Entity has the power to Appeal or not Appeal, as it chooses, 
      since 911/1 does not specifically bind it to do so.

So, who or what, is this Entity?  911/1 does not help much, since after 
this troublesome sentence it goes directly into what happens once a CFJ 
is "successfully Appealed."  Neither is 910/1, which defines the duties 
of Justices and has little bearing on making Appeals.

Which leaves us with Common Sense.  Which, I believe, suggests that this 
Entity is, in fact, the Clerk of the Courts.  It is the CotC who accepts 
CFJ's (Rule 991/0) and determines if a CFJ is accepted for Judgement 
(Rule 662/0.) It therefore follows, if a power exists to decide if an 
Appeal is "successful" or not, and whether the Appeal is made or not, it 
resides with the CotC.

It is therefore the opinion of this Judge that CotC Kelly did in fact 
have the legal power to deny Chuck's insistence, *even if* such an 
insistence was made to the Public Forum.  Therefore I  have no choice 
but to rule FALSE on CFJ 752. Since CotC Kelly has refused to Appeal CFJ 
750, and has the power to do so arbitrarily via Rule 911/1, CFJ 750 has 
*not* been successfully Appealed, even though, in this Judge's opinion, 
three Players have made insistences to the Public Forum as otherwise 
required by Rule 911/1.

Injunction:

Since I am ruling this CFJ FALSE, I cannot via Rule 789/1 issue an 
Injunction to annotate 911/1.  This is truly unfortunate, in that this 
is a rather important interpretation of the CotC's power.  I therefore 
make a non-binding request to the Rulekeepor to add an unofficial 
comment to Rule 911 stating that the CotC has the power to reject 
Appeals.

-------------------------------------
Relevant evidence not included with CFJ 752:

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

Text of Kelly's message denying Chuck's insistence:
[irrelevant header meterial deleted]

>Date: Sun, 12 Mar 95 02:34:51 EST5
>From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin)
>To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
>Cc: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
>Subject: Re: OFF: Judgement of CFJ 750 (Speaker ElJefe violated Rule 452...)


"Charles" == Charles E Carroll <ccarroll@students.wisc.edu> writes:

Charles> Nothing in Rule 911 or 478 implies that it has to be posted
Charles> *by me* to the Public Forum.  The fact that it has been
Charles> posted to the Public Forum is sufficient, and my call for
Charles> appeal is valid.

911 states that "A Judgement may be Appealed upon the insistence of
any three Players to the Public Forum."  i do not see how a third
party can convey the insistence of another player to the Public Forum.

i believe this is disanalogous to the situation with point transfers;
in that case the transfer is what needs to be posted.  in this case,
the player must express eir insistence to the public forum.  i contend
that another player cannot act as an intermediate vehicle of such
expression.  your insistence of appeal was made not to the public
forum, but to me, personally.

i continue to hold that your privately-expressed insistence upon
appeal is not binding upon me.  feel free to CFJ on the matter.

as an aside, i think this phrasing in 911/1 is perfectly terrible.

k.
--
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

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

Rule 910/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
Appeals and the Justiciar

      Let there be three Players known as the Justices, and an Office 
      known as the Justiciar.  The Justiciar shall not receive a
      weekly salary.  The Speaker and the Clerk of the Courts are
      ineligible to be Justiciar.

      The positions of Justice shall be held by the Speaker, the Clerk
      of the Courts, and the Justiciar;  or by their representatives
      as detailed in this Rule.

      The Justices shall have the duty to Judge Statements that have
      been Appealed.  They shall receive the same compensation as
      Judges for each Statement so Judged.

      The Speaker and Clerk may delegate their duties as Justices to
      other willing Players if they desire.  They must do so if a
      Player would otherwise hold more than one position of Justice.

      Any Justice must so delegate eir duties for a particular case
      if e made the original CFJ, if e was the Judge of the original
      CFJ, or if e was Accused by that CFJ of breaking a Rule.

      If no Player is willing to receive the duties of Justice for a
      case, the Clerk of the Courts shall select one randomly.

[In CFJ 728 Judge Vlad opined that Rules 910/0 and 897/0 jointly
imply that a Player Barred from Judging a certain CFJ is also
forbidden from serving as Justice on an Appeal of that CFJ.]

History:
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1447, Feb. 21 1995

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

Rule 991/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
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.

      No Player shall submit more than five CFJ's per week.
      (*Was: 407*)

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

Rule 662/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Allowed CFJ's

      A "Move" refers to any specific action taken by a Player or
      group of Players in the context of the game. Any invocation of
      Judgement must satisfy one or more of the following conditions:

          - clearly allege that a specific Move is illegal;
          - clearly allege that a specific Rule is illegal or lacking
            in legal force, in whole or in part;
          - clearly allege that a specific Rule ought to be
            interpreted in a certain way.
          - clearly allege that the current published game state is
            incorrect, and in what respects.

      A CFJ which does not satisfy at least one of the above
      conditions shall be deemed invalid and shall not be accepted for
      Judgement by the Clerk of the Courts. However, this Rule shall
      defer to rules which explictly permit CFJs that do not
      necessarily meet the above conditions.

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

Rule 789/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
Injunctions on Interpretations of Rules

      When a player makes a CFJ alleging that a Rule should be
      interpreted in a certain way, e shall also submit a list of
      Rules relevant to that CFJ, which must include the Rule in
      question.  If the statement is Judged TRUE, the Judge may
      include with the Judgement an Injuction requiring the Rulekeepor
      to annotate the Rule in question with the Statement in the CFJ
      and the list of relevant Rules.

      The annotation shall remain only until one of the Rules in the
      list of relevant Rules is changed in any way; or until a CFJ
      determines that the injunction no longer applies, as described
      below.  While it remains, it shall guide the application of that
      Rule.

      If a Player believes that the circumstances which led to the
      Judgement no longer prevail and the annotation is therefore no
      longer applicable, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is
      Judged TRUE, the annotation shall be stricken from the rule set.

History:
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1396, Jan. 29 1995
----------------------------------------

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

Judgement of the Justiciar:  FALSE

I uphold Swann's original Judgement that the Statement is FALSE.

Swann's quite remarkable Judgement discovers in the language of
Rule 911 a previously unsuspected power of the CotC to arbitrarily
refuse to accept Appeals, even if these are made to the Public
Forum. Perhaps this discovery outrages the sensibilities of those
to whom it seems clear that Rule 911 was never intended to grant
the CotC such a power. That is not my concern. It is my task to
determine if Swann's Judgement was correct in law. In my view,
Judge Swann was perfectly within his rights to read Rule 911 as
closely as he did, and to deduce from the language contained
therein his surprising conclusion. In the absence of an overriding
reason to overturn his Judgement, I therefore uphold his Judgement
that the Statement of CFJ 752 is FALSE.

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

Judgement of the Speaker:  FALSE

Swann's judgement of FALSE turns on the question of interpreting Rule 911,
in particular the first sentence "A Judgement may be Appealed upon the 
insistence of any three Players to the Public Forum."

After much discussion, he finds that Chuck's indirectly communicated 
insistence counts as "insistence to the Public Forum", but denies that
the sentence actually mandates an Appeal.

The wording is "may be Appealed upon", not "is Appealed upon" or "may be 
Appealed by".  The first alternative phrasing would effect a legal event 
("Appeal"), whereas the second alternative phrasing is a definition of how 
to effect the event; there really is no difference between them.  

Unfortunately and strangely, the actual language leaves the word "Appeal" 
adrift, with neither a mandate for when it occurs nor a definition of how 
to carry it out.

Therefore I uphold the judgement of FALSE.

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

Judgment of the Delegate for the Clerk of the Courts: UNDECIDED

Arguments:

1) Is Chuck's attempt to post an appeal to the Public Forum, with the
CotC as intermediary, a valid posting to the Forum?

I think the answer is yes.
911/1 requires that the Appeal message is send to the Public Forum.
Rule 478/1 defines the Public Forum as:
"The Public Forum is any medium defined by the Distributor as such."

Obviously the CotC is not such a medium :-)

However, the Rule continues:
"If a Rule requires that a message is send to the Public
 Forum, then a message send to all Active Players fulfills this
 requirement as well."

And this of course is exactly what Chuck did. The fact that the
CotC was used as intermediary is irrelevant, because Chuck's appeal
was inbedded in the Arguments to a Judgment and he know that the
CotC was obliged to forward that message to all Active Players.

Note that a few days earlier 478 had been amended.
478/0 put a time limit on the forwarding to all Players, which is no
longer the case in 478/1.

2) Were there three Players insisting on the Appeal of CFJ 750?

The answer is yes again. I established in 1) that Chuck did so,
by indirect means. Coren and TAL on the other hand posted directly
to nomic-discussion, which makes three Players in total.

3) Is three Players insisting on the Appeal of CFJ 750 a sufficient
condition?

Although Judge Swann made an argument to the contrary, I tend to
think the answer here is `yes' too. However, we are close to the limits
of my knowledge of English (and maybe outside :-)

Swann's argument may be summarized as follows:
   911 says: "A Judgement may be Appealed ...."
   The word "may" implies that the three insistences to the Public Forum
   only allows the decision of the Appeal to take place to be made.

911 uses `Appeal' in its verbal form.
Well, `to appeal' means:
  1: to take steps to have (a case) reheard in a higher court
  2: to plead for help, corroboration, or decision
  3: to arouse a sympathetic response

Therefore the very act of `requesting a Judgment to be overturned'
is equivalent to `Appealing'. And in Nomic that *may* be done by
posting to the Public Forum. As shown in 1) and 2) three Players
did so. Successfully, I might add: their messages made it to all
Players.

However, this dictionary definition of `appeal' combined with the
'upon' makes it for me impossible to parse the whole sentence,
in a way it makes sense. I therefore will assume here that Swann
is right.

4) Did CotC Kelly have the *legal* power to deny Chuck's insistence?

According to Judge Swann, Common Sense [sic] dictates that the entity
who takes the decision whether a Judgment is successfully appealed
can only be the CotC. Swann arrives at this conclusion by pointing
out the analogy with the CotC's power of decision in accepting CFJ's
for Judgment (Rule 662).

However, 911/1 claims: "If a Judgement is successfully Appealed,
the Justices shall each  Judge the Statement as if they were Judges."

Without appealing to Common Sense I conclude that the CotC -who
after all is a Justice- has the legal power to deny an insistence
to appeal, because e shall Judge the Statement *only* if a Judgment
is successfully Appealed.

However, e may only do so, when this is legally justified and I
established in 1) and 2) that this is not the case with respect to
Chuck's appeal. Therefore, if *I* would have been Justice on CFJ 750
then I would have had no choice as to consider the Appeal.

But, as Justice Steve points out bi-monthly, justice is for a
large part interpretation and Justice Kelly apparently interprets
Rule 478 differently, then I do.

In fact, it might just be possible that Justice Kelly comes to one
conclusion, while Justice Steve and Justice ElJefe arrive at
another. At the time this CFJ was made we had not yet heard the
opinion of the other two Justices on the matter!

5) Should Rule 911 be interpreted such that CFJ 750 has been
successfully appealed?

I summarize:
- In my opinion, Chuck's appeal was legal, and so where Coren's and TAL's.
- However, a Justice may refuse to take note of appeals if they
are not legally made, in eir opinion.
- At the time CFJ 752 was made we had not heard yet of the other
two Justices.

Whereas Rule 451 obliges me to base my evaluation on the
`truth or falsity of the Statement at the time the CFJ was issued',
and whereas two out of three Justices had not yet given their
opinion on whether Chuck's indirect posting constituted a legal
means of Appealing, I feel I have only the right to judge UNDECIDED.

Note: I think 911 is not too bad. Apparently the three Justices may not
only reJudge the CFJ if there is an Appeal, they may also "judge" whether
there was an Appeal in the first place. That seems more logical to me
then leaving it in the hands of one Officer only.

References:

Rule 451/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
Determination of Judgement--Timing

      When a Judge is considering eir Judgement of a Statement
      contained in a CFJ, e shall make eir evaluation based on the
      truth or falsity of the Statement at the time the CFJ was issued.

Rule 478/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
The Public Forum

      The Public Forum is hereby defined as any medium by which one
      player sends or posts a message which, to the best of the
      sender's intent, knowledge, belief, and ability, is
      simultaneously sent to all active players and accurately dated
      to within 5 minutes. The terms "listserv" and "listserver" are
      synonymous with "Public Forum".

Rule 478/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
The Public Forum

      The Public Forum is any medium defined by the Distributor as
      such.  If a Rule requires that a message is send to the Public
      Forum, then a message send to all Active Players fulfills this
      requirement as well"

History:
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995

Rule 662/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Allowed CFJ's

      A "Move" refers to any specific action taken by a Player or
      group of Players in the context of the game. Any invocation of
      Judgement must satisfy one or more of the following conditions:

          - clearly allege that a specific Move is illegal;
          - clearly allege that a specific Rule is illegal or lacking
            in legal force, in whole or in part;
          - clearly allege that a specific Rule ought to be
            interpreted in a certain way.
          - clearly allege that the current published game state is
            incorrect, and in what respects.

      A CFJ which does not satisfy at least one of the above
      conditions shall be deemed invalid and shall not be accepted for
      Judgement by the Clerk of the Courts. However, this Rule shall
      defer to rules which explictly permit CFJs that do not
      necessarily meet the above conditions.


Rule 911/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
Appealing Judgement

      A Judgement may be Appealed upon the insistence of any three
      Players to the Public Forum.

      If a Judgement is successfully Appealed, the Justices shall each
      Judge the Statement as if they were Judges.  They may confer
      with each other on the case before delivering Judgement if they
      desire.  If a Justice should fail to return Judgement in the
      allotted time, e shall be fined three Points for each day by
      which e missed the deadline.  This fine shall be levied by the
      Scorekeepor.

      If a majority of the Justices' Judgements agree, the Statement
      shall be considered to have been Judged accordingly.  Otherwise,
      it shall be considered to have been ruled UNDECIDED.  The
      Justices' reasoning and arguments shall be recorded with the
      original CFJ.

      Once a Judgement has been made, the Justices may make
      Injunctions just as may Judges, provided a majority of them
      agree.

      The decision of the Justices is final; no further Appeal of that
      Statement may be made.

      If the decision of the original Judge of the Statement is
      changed by the Justices, the Judge shall forfeit the
      compensation e received for judging.
      (*Was: 690*)

History:
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994

======================================================================
--
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.