From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Thu May 11 18:58:57 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 SAA02656 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Thu, 11 May 1995 18:58:39 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id QAA02229 for nomic-official-outgoing; Thu, 11 May 1995 16:57:48 -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 QAA02212 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Thu, 11 May 1995 16:57:42 -0700
Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0s9i6s-0001bMC; Thu, 11 May 95 18:57 EST
Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga)
	  id <2zzh@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Thu, 11 May 95 18:00:47 EST5
Date: Thu, 11 May 95 18:00:47 EST5
Message-Id: <9505112300.2zzh@poverty.bloomington.in.us>
From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin)
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Subject: OFF: CFJ762: Final Judgement
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

======================================================================
		      FINAL JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 762
	   (As only those Directives which are defined...)
======================================================================

  Final Judgement:  FALSE

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

  Replacement for CotC:     Swann
  Replecement for Speaker:  Andre

  Clerk of the Courts:  Kelly, defaulted
  Justiciar:            Steve
  Speaker:		Vanyel, defaulted

  Judgement:  TRUE

  Judge:   Blob

  Eligible to Judge:  Andre, Blob, Dave Bowen, Chuck, Elde, elJefe,
		      Jeffrey, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Pascal, Steve,
		      Swann, Vanyel, Vlad, Xanadu

  Judge:   Coren, defaulted

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

  Caller:  TAL

  Scorekeepor:
    Coren loses 10 Points for defaulting Judgement
    Blob receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement
    Steve receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement
    Kelly loses 10 Points for defaulting Appelate Judgement
    Vanyel loses 10 Points for defaulting Appelate Judgement
    Swann receives 3 Points for timely Judgement
    Andre receives 3 Points for timely Judgement
    Blob surrenders 5 Points for being overturned

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

History:
  Called Fri, 07 Apr 95 18:16:57 SET by TAL
  Assigned Sat, 08 Apr 1995 14:55 UTC to Coren
  Defaulted Sat, 15 Apr 1995 14:55 UTC by Coren
  --> Coren loses 10 Points
  Reassigned Sun, 16 Apr 1995 06:30 UTC to Blob
  Judged TRUE Wed, 19 Apr 1995 12:51:10 +1000 (EST) by Blob
  --> Blob receives 5 Points
  Appealed Mon, 24 Apr 95 17:01:51 METDST by Andre
  Appealed Mon, 24 Apr 95 11:37:16 EDT by elJefe
  Appealed Mon, 24 Apr 95 11:09:46 -0400 by KoJen
  Assigned Mon, 24 Apr 1995 17:00 UTC to Steve as Justiciar
  Assigned Mon, 24 Apr 1995 17:00 UTC to Kelly as CotC
  Assigned Mon, 24 Apr 1995 17:00 UTC to Vanyel as Speaker
  Judged FALSE Tue, 25 Apr 1995 16:12:00 +1000 (EST) by Steve
  --> Steve receives 5 Points
  Defaulted Mon, 1 Apr 1995 17:00 UTC by Kelly
  --> Kelly loses 10 Points
  Defaulted Mon, 1 Apr 1995 17:00 UTC by Vanyel
  --> Vanyel loses 10 Points
  Reassigned to Swann Thu, 4 May 1995 03:25 UTC as pro-CotC
  Reassigned to Andre Thu, 4 May 1995 03:25 UTC as pro-Speaker
  Judged FALSE Tue, 9 May 1995 05:52:37 -0400 by Swann
  --> Swann receives 3 Points 
  Judged FALSE Wed, 10 May 95 12:45:35 METDST by Andre
  --> Andre receives 3 Points
  --> Blob loses 5 Points

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

Statement:

"As only those Directives which are defined by the Rules may be placed
in a Proposal, obviously the paragraphs

>Directive I:
>"Coren shall be dismissed as Sweepstake Officer."
>
>Directive II:
>"The Player being currently the Banker, shall be dismissed."

are not part of Proposal 1543."

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

Arguments:

Proposal 1543 seemingly contains two Directives. However these socalled
Directives (quoted in the statement) are of a type that is not defined
in the Rules. By Rule 993 they may therefore not be placed in a
Proposal. Consequently they are not part of the Proposal. (Maybe they
were commentary? A sort of Statement of Intent?)

Note: the real 1543, the part that should be voted upon is
>Proposal 1543 (TAL) Short
>Adoption Index: 1
>
>Directives to abolish Offices.
>
>Amend Rule 1006 by adding at its end:
>"When an Office no longer exist, a Directive to dismiss the Officer
> may be proposed."
>

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

References:

Proposal 1543 as distributed.
Rule 993

Proposal 1543 (TAL) Short
Adoption Index: 1

Directives to abolish Offices.

Amend Rule 1006 by adding at its end:
"When an Office no longer exist, a Directive to dismiss the Officer
 may be proposed."

Directive I:
"Coren shall be dismissed as Sweepstake Officer."

Directive II:
"The Player being currently the Banker, shall be dismissed."


Rule 993/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
Directives

      A Proposal may contain one or more Directives.  A Directive, if
      adopted, causes some change in the Game State other than
      changing a Rule.  No Directive may change any Rule.  Only those
      Directives which are defined by the Rules may be placed in a
      Proposal.

      If a Proposal containing Directives is adopted, the Directives
      shall take effect in the order that they appear in the Proposal,
      and according to the Rule or Rule which define the type of each
      Directive in question.

      The Adoption Index of a Proposal containing a Directive must be
      at least as great as that required by the Rule or Rules which
      define the type of Directive contained in the Proposal.  Any
      Proposal for which this is not true is not properly made.

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

Judgement:  TRUE
 
Argument:
 
It is my opinion that there are no such thing as "Directives 
which are not defined by the rules", as the only reasonable 
way to find out whether something is a Directive is to look at 
the definition of "Directive". And it is game custom to let 
definitions in the rules take precedence over everyday 
defintions. 
 
So, as Directives are defined in the rules, we have to use these
definitions to judge whether or not something is a Directive. 
And as the two lines labelled "Directive I" and "Directive II" 
do not fit into this definition (or at least, did not at the 
time the proposal was made), we must assume they are NOT 
Directives.
 
It appears to me that these lines do not fall under any of the 
other required or permitted parts of a Proposal as defined in 
the rules, so it is game custom to assume that they are comments.
 
As to whether these comments are part of the proposal, it 
appears to also be game custom that any text included with a 
proposal, which could not affect the game state (if the prop 
passed) is regarded as "not part of the proposal". Take, for 
example rule 597/1.
 
Therefore, it seems clear to me that the text quoted in the
Statement, although it was included with proposal 1543, and may
be distributed with it, was not part of the proposal.

Additional Evidence:

Rule 597/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
Titles for Proposals
 
      Every Proposal shall be headed with a Title. This Title shall
      not actually be a part of the Proposal itself and therefore
      shall not become a part of any Rule Enacted or Amended by that
      Proposal. If a Proposal is not headed with a Title, then the
      proposal is not properly submitted, and shall not be Voted upon.
 
History:
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1327, Nov. 22 1994

-- 
            Malcolm Ryan - Honours Comp Sci at UNSW, Australia
Email: malcolmr@cse.unsw.edu.au  WWW: http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~malcolmr/
    "It means nothing - and nothing is quite what it seems." - BOOJUM!

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

Judgement of the Justiciar:  FALSE

I overturn Judge Blob's initial Judgement, and Judge that the Statement
is FALSE.

It appears to me that the truth of the Statement depends upon the
answers to two different questions. As we shall see, I think that
only the first of these questions is really important; the answer to
the second question, while affecting whether we say that the
Statement is TRUE or FALSE, is perhaps as much a matter of taste as
anything else.

The important question raised by the Statement is: did Proposal 1543
contain any Directives at all? In this matter I think that Blob
Judged correctly that it did not. It is worth repeating here in this
Official context my belief that there are not two kinds of Directives, 
those defined by the Rules and those not defined by the Rules. Rather, 
as Blob argued, the Rules define what is a Directive, and anything
not satisfying this definition is no kind of Directive at all.
Neither of the text fragments in Proposal 1543 which purport to be
Directives satisfy this definition, and so neither of these fragments
can be held to be Directives. So Proposal 1543 did not contain any
Directives.

The second question now arises: if Proposal 1543 did not contain any
Directives, then what exactly did it contain? Specifically, did it
contain any text fragments purporting to be Directives? Blob in his
Judgement argued that "these lines do not fall under any of the
other required or permitted parts of a Proposal as defined in
the rules, so it is game custom to assume that they are comments",
and he goes on to argue from this that it is "game custom that any
text included with a proposal, which could not affect the game
state...is regarded as 'not part of the proposal'." He gives the
example of Titles (Rule 597).

I think this is a questionable line of argument. Firstly, the Rules
are fairly permissive in their approach to what may be contained in
a Proposal. Basically we are told that a Proposal may contain Rule
Changes (Rule 594) and Directives (Rule 993). But we are never told
that Proposals may not contain anything which is neither a Rule
Change nor a Directive. But secondly, I don't think game custom is 
as clear on the matter of whether comments are regarded as part of 
a proposal as Judge Blob would have it be. True, we are told that
Titles are not part of a Proposal, but I think it would be a mistake
to generalize from the special case of Titles to the more general
case of comments. For example, there is the occasional habit of some
Players of including, along with proposed amendments and creations,
requests to the Rulekeepor to give the newly created or amended Rule
a particular Title. These requests have no legal force, of course, but
I think it would be awkward if we were to regard them as not part of
the Proposals in which they (apparently) appear, particularly as they
may be gramatically intertwined with sentences specifying the nature
of a Rule Change that the Proposal is proposing. If one was to state
this as a general principle, it would be this: that it is better to
allow Proposals to come in easily identified chunks, without having
to worry about which parts of the chunk are really a part of the
Proposal and which are not, and to allow some parts of the Proposal
to be passive and without any legal effects, than it is to require 
that only those parts of a document submitted as a Proposal, which
will, if adopted, have some legal effect, are to be considered a part
of that Proposal. The latter alternative seems complicated and 
distasteful to me, and contrary to commonsense.

It is therefore my Judgement that while Proposal 1543 contained no
Directives, it did contain text fragments which purported to be
Directives, and hence that the Statement is FALSE.

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:  FALSE

Arguments:

I concur with Blob insofar as it is evident that there can not be
such a thing as a "Directive which is not defined by the rules." I also
concur that, as Blob argued, the lines of the Proposal in question,
labelled "Directive I" and "Directive II" can not be Directives, because
no such "Directives" are defined in the Rules.  I will not go into that
argument again, since that ground is well trod, and now seems generally agreed 
upon.

The question then falls, is the remainder of Blob's argument valid?

Specifically, the following 2 paragraphs:

  "It appears to me that these lines do not fall under any of the 
   other required or permitted parts of a Proposal as defined in 
   the rules, so it is game custom to assume that they are comments.
 
   As to whether these comments are part of the proposal, it 
   appears to also be game custom that any text included with a 
   proposal, which could not affect the game state (if the prop 
   passed) is regarded as "not part of the proposal". Take, for 
   example rule 597/1."

Hmmmm.  I have scrounged through the Ruleset, and I have actually found
nothing that really defines the "required or permitted" part of a
Proposal.  There are rules that define how a Proposal is submitted (Rule
1036/2) and what text is required to be attached (Rule 597/1) but nothing that 
limits the content of Proposals themselves.  Now there are
explicit limits on the content and form of Directives and of Rule
Changes and up until recently there has been a de-facto limit on the
number of Rule Creations a Proposal could contain because of the form
of Rule Numbering, which has since been decoupled from Proposal
numbering... all of these are indirect limits.  There is no Rule that
someone can not submit a Proposal as follows:

   "Proposal 9999
    This Text is a Proposal

    This Proposal contains no Rule Changes or Directives."

This Proposal obviously contains some text (or else it wouldn't exist.)
But by Blob's reasoning, since this text does not change the Game state,
it is not part of the Proposal.  This, I think, is wrong--

As a counterexample to Blob's mentioning of Proposal Titles, which Rule
597/1 explicitly states are not part of a Proposal, (making 597/1 an
invalid example of how extraneous text is treated) I offer a careful 
examination of 1339/2 which shows that such declarations as in the example 
above are more often than not treated as part of the Proposal.

In 1339/2, the lines and declarations that preface the text of a 
Rule Change are, themselves, implicitly part of that Rule Change and thus part 
of a proposal that contains the Rule Change.

Example from 1339/2:

     "Any Rule Change which affects an existing Rule must clearly
      identify the Number of the Rule to be affected."

Thus in the following example:

     "Proposal 9999
      A Pointless Amendment.

      Amend Rule 1339/2 by adding the following text:

      "fnord.""

The line contenting the Number of the Amended Rule is part of the Rule
Change, and part of the Proposal. (Otherwise, the "Rule Change" cannot be 
clearly identifying the Number of the Rule being Amended, as 1339/2
requires.)  The Title, "A Pointless Amendment" is *only* excluded from
being part of the Proposal by the specific language of Rule 597/2.

There is nothing similar to the language of Rule 1339/2 to define the
status of the declarations prefacing Directives.  However, I believe
that both Logic and Game Custom are contrary to Blob's argument.

I maintain that if in this:

  "Proposal 9999
   Create Nothing.

   Let the following rule be Created (and placed in the Category
   "Nada"):

   "This rule does nothing, and takes precedence over any rule that
    demands it to do anything.""

the sentence "Let the following . ." is part of the Proposal (which it
clearly *is* via the sixth paragraph of 1339/2) then, in the following
example:

   "Proposal 9999
    A Legal Directive.

    Directive I:

    The Player who is now holding the Office of Herald is hereby
    replaced by Swann."

the sentence "Directive I:" is likewise part of the Proposal.

And, following the same logic, if in this:

   "Proposal 9999
    Illegally Does Nothing.

    Amend Rule 1339/2 by deleting the word "fnord.""

the sentence is part of the Proposal, even if the Proposal has no effect (there 
being no word "fnord" to be deleted) then in this:

  "Proposal 1543 (TAL) Short
   Adoption Index: 1

   Directives to abolish Offices.

   Amend Rule 1006 by adding at its end:
   "When an Office no longer exist, a Directive to dismiss the Officer
    may be proposed."

   Directive I:
   "Coren shall be dismissed as Sweepstake Officer."

   Directive II:
   "The Player being currently the Banker, shall be dismissed.""

at the very least, the sentences "Directive I:" and "Directive II:" are
part of the Proposal.  The text those lines refer to, are not, however,
Directives.

Now, Rule 993/1 says that only Directives defined by the Rules may be
placed in a Proposal.  However I, as well as the majority of Judicial
opinion, maintain that the only kind of Directive that exist are those 
defined within the Rules.  There is no such thing as an illegal or
undefined Directive, there are only Directives, and non-Directives.  The
text in question is obviously the latter.  I also think that it is clear
that extraneous text *does* in fact become part of a Proposal, but Game
Custom is that such text has no effect when the Rules do not give a
meaning to such text.  This is the case in TAL's proposal, the fact that the 
text did not contain Directives, as defined by the Rules, did not exclude these 
sentences from being part of a Proposal, just as Amendments to non-existent 
parts of a Rule do not exclude themselves from their Proposals.

The Statement, as worded, is FALSE.


References:

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

Rule 1339/2 (Semimutable, MI=3)
Rule Changes

      There are two types of Rule Change. A Proposed Rule Change is a
      Rule Change which appears in a Proposal, and which, insofar as
      the Rules permit it to take effect, has the effect of Creating,
      Amending, Mutating, Repealing or otherwise changing a Rule as
      defined elsewhere in the Rules, directly as a result of the
      passage of a Proposal. A non-Proposed Rule Change has the same
      effect as a Proposed Rule Change, but insofar as the Rules
      permit it to take effect, it does so not as the direct result
      of the passage of a Proposal, but rather, indirectly, as the
      result of the effect or action of a Rule.

      All Rule Changes, of either type, are subject to the following
      constraints:

      An individual Rule Change must change exactly one Rule.

      Any Rule Change which affects an existing Rule must clearly
      identify the Number of the Rule to be affected.

      Any Rule Change which creates a New Rule may specify the
      Mutability Index of the New Rule; however, if the Mutability
      Index is specified it must be greater than or equal to 1.  If
      the Mutability Index of any Rule created by a Rule Change is not
      specified, it shall be 1.

      Any Rule Change which creates a New Rule may specify the
      Category to which the New Rule will be assigned.  If the
      Category specified exists, the Rule shall be assigned to that
      Category.  If the Category specified does not exist, or no
      Category is specified, the Rulekeepor shall assign the Rule to
      an appropriate category of eir own choice.

      Any Rule Change which changes the Mutability Index of a Rule
      must clearly specify the new value of the Rule's Mutability
      Index.

      Any Rule Change which changes the text of a Rule must clearly and
      unambigiously specify the changes which are to be made. If the
      Rule Change quotes old text which is to be replaced with new
      text, then the quoted old text must match exactly with actual
      text in the Rule, with the exception of whitespace and
      capitalization. This takes precedence over Rules which would
      permit such differences, even if the differences would be
      considered inconsequential by such Rules.

      Any Rule Change which does not meet these criteria shall not
      have any legal force.

History:
Created by Proposal 1339, Nov. 29 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 1414, Feb. 1 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1440, Feb. 21 1995
Mutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 1532, Mar. 24 1995

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



--
Steven Swiniarski  (aka S Andrew Swann)
gb485@cleveland.freenet.edu
Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship.
                                        --Harry S Truman

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

Judgement of the Speaker:  FALSE

I overturn the judgement to be FALSE. I think I can be short in stating my
point, as I agree with Steve (one could also say that Steve agrees with me, as
I had already stated this point of view in my Call for Appeal).

I agree with the caller that the would-be Directives are NOT of any form of
Directive allowed by the rules, and therefore are NOT Directives. However, in
spite of what the caller and the Judge said, and in agreement with the
Justiciar, I judge that Game Custom tells us that Proposals may contain parts
which are neither Rule Changes nor Directives, even though such parts have no
legal force.

The main example has already been given by Steve, namely remarks regarding
the (unofficial) titles of Rules. Another example might be the fact that, if
not now then sometime in the past, the text of the thesis was part of the
proposal to request a Degree.

There are some things which are considered to be NOT part of a Proposal, but
these are exceptions, either entrenched in the Rule (Titles), or through Game
Custom (Commentary). The normal way is that anything contained in a Proposal is
indeed part of the Proposal.

Andre

P.S.: Isn't it a strange coincidence that the randomly chosen pro-Speaker was
the Speaker-elect (and now even Speaker)?

[[CotC's note: it was entirely coincidental.  my HP48GX makes all
judicial selections.]]

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