From email@example.com Mon Apr 10 22:09:49 1995 Return-Path: firstname.lastname@example.org Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [184.108.40.206]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id WAA05703 for <email@example.com>; 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 [220.127.116.11]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA07984 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 20:08:10 -0700 Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp (Smail18.104.22.168 #7) id m0ryWJ9-0001XgC; Mon, 10 Apr 95 22:08 EST Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga) id <email@example.com>; Mon, 10 Apr 95 20:48:08 EST5 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 95 20:48:08 EST5 Message-Id: <firstname.lastname@example.org> From: email@example.com (Kelly Martin) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: OFF: CFJ758: Judgement Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org 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 <email@example.com> 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.