From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Mon Apr 10 22:09:49 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 WAA05703 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 22:09:46 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id UAA08089 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 20:08:39 -0700
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 UAA07984 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 20:08:10 -0700
Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0ryWJ9-0001XgC; Mon, 10 Apr 95 22:08 EST
Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga)
	  id <2nta@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Mon, 10 Apr 95 20:48:08 EST5
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 95 20:48:08 EST5
Message-Id: <9504110148.2nta@poverty.bloomington.in.us>
From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin)
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Subject: OFF: CFJ758: Judgement
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

======================================================================
			 JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 758
	 (Rule 833 and 1438 must be interpretated as such...)
======================================================================

  Judgement: FALSE

  Judge:   elJefe

  Eligible to Judge:  Blob, Coren, Dave Bowen, Chuck, Elde, elJefe,
		      Jeffrey, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Oerjan,
		      Steve, Vlad, Pascal, Xanadu

  Judge:   JonRock, defaulted

  Eligible to Judge:  Blob, Coren, Dave Bowen, Chuck, Elde, elJefe,
		      Jeffrey, JonRock, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Oerjan,
		      Steve, Vlad, Pascal, Xanadu

  Caller:  TAL

  Scorekeepor:  
    JonRock loses 10 Points for defaulting
    elJefe receives 3 Points for timely Judgement

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

History:
  Called Mon, 27 Mar 95 14:57:43 SET by TAL
  Assigned Mon, 27 Mar 1995 14:05 UTC to JonRock
  Defaulted Mon, 3 Mar 1995 14:05 UTC by JonRock
  --> JonRock loses 10 Points
  Reassigned Wed, 5 Apr 1995 07:48 UTC to elJefe
  Judged TRUE Mon, 10 Apr 95 09:29:43 EDT by elJefe
  --> elJefe receives 3 Points 

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

Statement:

"Rule 833 and 1438 must be interpretated as such, that the F-A Points,
that a Player gets, when the voting Period for a Proposal is over, are
a punitive pointloss, in those cases where F-A turns out to be negative."

Barred Players: Andre, Swann, Vanyel

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

Arguments:

1438 explicitly excludes pointlosses that are:
"the direct result of submission of or Voting on a Proposal"
as being Punitive.

But a `direct result' is a result that stems immediately from a source,
cause, or reason, which in the case of the F-A pointloss is not true.

The F-A pointloss is the result of a number of causes, that act together:
- the Player submitted the Proposal
- the Proposal was distributed
- the Proposal was voted upon
- more Players voted AGAINST than voted FOR
- the F-A points were not halved by virtue of Rule 1061
- the Speaker/Assessor did not forget to report the Points, which
would cancel the score change. This might be farfetched but is not.
What happens if the score change is not reported? There will be a
Claim of Error; the error will be corrected; but in that case the
pointloss (now applied after all) has changed its nature, as an
"Adjustments made as part of a correction in the Game State" can
never be punitive (1438 again).

An F-A Pointloss is therefore hardly the direct result of the
submission or the vote in itself.

Consequently, the Pointloss is punitive.

Note:
this CFJ envisages to counter Andre's bid for a Championship using
Points earned in a previous Game and hibernated in the Reform Treasury.
The failure of 1529 resulted in -7 F-A points, which (if considered
Punitive) would result in a number of Blots.
And one is enough....

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

References:

Rule 833/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Reward or Penalty for Proposing

      When the voting period for a proposal is over, the proposer gets
      F-A points, where F is the number of votes FOR, and A is the
      number of votes AGAINST.  However, only the Votes of Voters
      shall be counted for this determination.
      (*Was: 544*)


Rule 1061/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Bonus to New Players

      For the first five consecutive Nomic Weeks following the
      registration of a Player who has not played in this Nomic
      previously, that Player shall receive 5 Points for each
      week in which e submits one or more Proposals to the Speaker,
      and any penalties which are the direct result of voting on
      such Proposals are halved; all of these shall be reported to
      the Scorekeepor by the Speaker.


Rule 1438/1 (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 direct result of submission of or Voting 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
Amended(1) by Proposal 1495, Mar. 15 1995

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

Judgement:  FALSE

Rule 1438 explicitly excludes point losses that are "the direct result 
of submission of or Voting on a Proposal" as being Punitive.

TAL's argument is that F-A point losses are not "directly" the result of 
voting.  In support of this, he offered a variety of circumstances which
must be present for F-A points to be lost, and others which might prevent 
or modify the point loss.

Under this interpretation, it is hard to see that _anything_ would count
as being the "direct" result of voting.

A more sensible interpretation is to say that a point loss is the 
direct result of voting if there is a rule directing that a certain
voting outcome results in the point loss.  That is:  if a Rule says 
"if A, then X", X is the direct result of A.

It would be "indirect" if the Rules specified some intermediate cause 
between the voting and the point loss.  That is, if the rules instead
say "if A, then B", and "if B, then X",  X is an indirect result of A.

Nor is it necessary for "directness" that the voting be the sole cause 
of the result.  If the Rule says "if A and B, then X", X is the direct
result of A and B together, and can be thought of as a direct result
of either.

Thus a Proposal to award the Scamster Title, if adopted, would cause a 
Punitive Point loss of 1 Point.  This is a result of the voting, but not 
a "direct" result, since there is an intermediate cause:  the voting
causes the adoption of the proposal and the award of the Scamster title,
and the award of the title causes the point loss.

Under this interpretation an F-A point loss is "the direct result of
voting", by Rule 833.

--ElJefe, Judge

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