From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Thu May 11 18:58:56 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 SAA02659 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Thu, 11 May 1995 18:58:48 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id QAA02258 for nomic-official-outgoing; Thu, 11 May 1995 16:57:56 -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 QAA02230 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Thu, 11 May 1995 16:57:49 -0700
Received: from poverty by mizar.astro.indiana.edu with uucp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0s9i6u-0001bZC; Thu, 11 May 95 18:57 EST
Received: by poverty.bloomington.in.us (V1.17-beta/Amiga)
	  id <2zzm@poverty.bloomington.in.us>; Thu, 11 May 95 18:00:56 EST5
Date: Thu, 11 May 95 18:00:56 EST5
Message-Id: <9505112300.2zzm@poverty.bloomington.in.us>
From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin)
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Subject: OFF: CFJ766: Judgement
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

======================================================================
			 JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 766
    (The Rules should be interpreted, such that Proposal 1577...)
======================================================================

  Judgement:  TRUE

  Judge:   Swann

  Eligible to Judge:  Elde, TAL, JonRock, Blob, Xanadu, KoJen, Vlad,
		      elJefe, Michael, Tang, Steve, Vanyel, Swann,
		      Kelly, Dave Bowen, Ian

  Judge:   Pascal, defaulted

  Eligible to Judge:  Elde, JonRock, Blob, Xanadu, KoJen,
		      Pascal, elJefe, Michael, Steve, Vanyel, Swann,
		      Kelly, Dave Bowen, Jeffrey, Tang

  Judge:   Oerjan, defaulted

  Eligible to Judge:  Elde, JonRock, Oerjan, Blob, Xanadu, KoJen,
		      Pascal, elJefe, Michael, Steve, Vanyel, Swann,
		      Kelly, Dave Bowen, Jeffrey, Tang

  Caller:  Chuck

  Scorekeepor:
    Oerjan loses 10 Points for defaulting on Judgement
    Pascal loses 10 Points for defaulting on Judgement
    Swann receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement

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

History:
  Called Fri, 21 Apr 1995 03:53:38 -0500 by Chuck
  Assigned Fri, 21 Apr 1995 15:30 UTC to Oerjan
  Defaulted Fri, 28 Apr 1995 15:30 UTC by Oerjan
  --> Oerjan loses 10 Points for defaulting on Judgement
  Reassigned Sun, 30 Apr 1995 01:35 UTC to Pascal
  Defaulted Sun, 07 May 1995 01:35 UTC by Pascal
  --> Pascal loses 10 Points for defaulting on Judgement
  Reassigned Mon, 08 May 1995 06:40 UTC to Swann
  Judged TRUE Tue, 9 May 1995 17:34:56 -0400 by Swann

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

Statement: 

"The Rules should be interpreted, such that Proposal 1577 contains
zero Rule Changes and zero Directives."

Barred: Andre

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

Arguments:

At first glance, Proposal 1577 seems to contain a Directive to
Change the Category of a Rule.  But it does not; by Rule 1054,
such a Directive must state the old category of the Rule, which
Proposal 1577 does not do.  (As an aside, I note that Promotor
Coren *correctly* assigned Proposal 1577 an AI of 1, rather than
the AI of 2 it would have if it contained a Directive to change
the category of a Rule.)

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

References:

I.  Proposal 1577
II.  Rule 1054.

======I. Proposal 1577

Proposal 1577 (Andre) Protoed, Short
Adoption Index: 1

Change the Category of the Public Forum
(Directive)

Change the Category of Rule 478. The new Category should be 'The
Distributor and the Assistant'.

======II. Rule 1054

Rule 1054/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
Changing the Category of a Rule

      The assigned Category of an existing Rule may be changed by
      means of a Directive to change the Category of that Rule.  Such
      a Directive shall clearly state the Rule whose Category is to be
      changed, its old Category, and its proposed new Category.  The
      Proposal containing such a Directive must have an Adoption Index
      of at least 2.

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

Judgement:  TRUE

As to the first part of the Statement, Proposal 1577 does not even
allege that it contains any Rule Changes, and it would be ludicrous for
anyone to argue that it does.  (Which leaves the Judge wondering why this
needs to be part of the Statement, it is akin to a Statement saying,
"Proposal 1577 was Proposed by Andre and contains zero Directives.")

As to the part of the Statement I am Judging:

   "... Proposal 1577 contains [...] zero Directives."

>From Proposal 1577:

   "Change the Category of Rule 478. The new Category should be 'The
    Distributor and the Assistant'."

>From Rule 1054/1 (Changing the Category of a Rule):

   "Such a Directive shall clearly state the Rule whose Category is to
    be changed, its old Category, and its proposed new Category."

Obviously, Proposal 1577 clearly states the Rule whose Category was to
be changed, and its proposed new Category.  It does not, however, state
the old Category of the Rule.  Therefore, this text, which alleges to be
a Directive, is not a legally formed Directive as defined by the Rules. 
It is, I believe, accepted Judicial practice to assume that there is no
such thing as a Directive not defined by the Rules-- there are only
Directives and non-Directives.  The text in Proposal 1577 is the latter,
and therefore the Statement is TRUE.

The Promotor was correct in assigning this Proposal any AI e deemed
appropriate, since there is no set AI for a Proposal containing random text
(other than it must be at least AI=1.)

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