From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Tue Jun 13 05:59:16 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 FAA29080 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Tue, 13 Jun 1995 05:45:53 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id DAA24551 for nomic-official-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 1995 03:45:20 -0700
Received: from wing3.wing.rug.nl (wing3.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.3]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA24527 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Tue, 13 Jun 1995 03:45:14 -0700
Message-Id: <199506131045.DAA24527@desiree.teleport.com>
Received: by wing3.wing.rug.nl
	(1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA14125; Tue, 13 Jun 1995 12:44:56 +0200
From: Andre Engels <csg419@wing.rug.nl>
Subject: OFF: Judgement CFJ 769
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 12:44:56 METDST
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

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

======================================================================
			JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 769
      (Rule 1466 should be interpreted such that a Proposal...)
======================================================================

  Judgement:  UNDECIDABLE

  Judge:   Michael

  Eligible to Judge: TAL, Jon, Xanadu, elJefe, Michael, Ian, Vanyel,
		     Swann, Andre, Kelly, Dave Bowen

  Caller:  Chuck

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

History:
  Called Tue, 6 Jun 95 18:04:00 CST by Chuck
  Assigned Fri, 9 Jun 1995 00:00 UTC to Michael
  Judged UNDECIDABLE Tue, 13 JUN 1995 09:43 BST by Michael

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

Statement: 

Rule 1466 should be interpreted such that a Proposal containing
one or more Currency Directives, and no other Directives or
Rule Changes which would require the Proposal to have a Mutability
Index greater than 1, has a Mutability Index of 1.

Requested Injunction:

I also request that the Judge make an Injunction on the interpetation
of Rule 1466, as described in Rule 789.  (Even though this request
is not necessary for the Judge to make the Injunction.)

Relevant Rules: 1466, 594, 993

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

Arguments:

My statement is a bit long, but this, I feel, is necessary.  Essentially,
it says that the presence of a Currency Directive in and of itself
in a Proposal does not require that Proposal to have an AI greater
than 1.

Rule 1466 states that "These Directives [Currency Directives] have
an Adoption Index of 2."  An Adoption Index of a Directive is
essentially meaningless, as no other Rule makes any reference to
the AI of a Directive.

Rule 594 sets the Adoption Index of Proposals, but is mainly
concerned with Rule Changes.  It merely defers to other Rules
which set a higher AI for certain Proposals.  1466 is *not*
such a Rule, as it says nothing about the AI of any Proposals,
only the AI of certain Directives.

Rule 993, defining Directives, states, "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."  Rule 1466 makes *no* requirements about the
AI of any Proposal.  Furthermore, both Rule 993 and Game Custom
make clear that even if a Proposal contains only a single Directive,
the Proposal is not the same as the Directive.

Thus, there is no Rule which would require a Proposal of the sort
defined in my statement (i.e. with one or more Currency Directives,
and possibly other Directives and Rule Changes that do not require
the Proposal to have an AI greater than 1) to have an AI greater
than 1.  Thus, by Rule 594, such a Proposal has an AI of 1.


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

References:

1. Rule 1466
2. Rule 594
3. Rule 993

======1. Rule 1466

Rule 1466/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Currency Directives

      There is a type of Directive, called a Currency Directive.
      These Directives have an Adoption Index of 2. If adopted, they
      have the effect of specifying the Currency holdings contained
      in an Entity or Entities' Treasury or Treasuries. They may have
      no other effects.

History:
Created by Proposal 1596, Jun. 2 1995

======2. Rule 594

Rule 594/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
Proposals and Rule Changes

      A Proposal may contain one or more Rule Changes.  If a Proposal
      containing Rule Changes is adopted, the Rule Changes contained
      in the Proposal shall take effect in the order they appear in
      the Proposal.

      The Adoption Index of a Proposal shall be the least Index which
      is not less than the minimum Adoption Index which would allow
      all the Rule Changes within the Proposal to take effect.  This
      paragraph yields to any Rule which may require a higher Adoption
      Index for a given Proposal.

      In no case may a Proposal have an Adoption Index of less than 1.

History:
..
Amended(1) by Proposal 1323, Nov. 21 1994

======3. Rule 993

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.

History:
..
Amended(1) by Proposal 1330, Nov. 22 1994

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

Judgement: 

UNDECIDABLE

Argument: 

This is really unfortunate, but a mistake in the phrasing of this CFJ
has meant that the obvious intent of the statement has been completely
neutralised.  The ruleset does not discuss whether or not Proposals
have Mutability Indices.  It is clear that rules do (see 1021), but
the interesting Index attached to Proposals is Adoption Index.  The
submitted argument accompanying the statement makes it clear that this
was the intention.  I urge the caller of this CFJ to correct their
mistake, and resubmit. 

The rules do not say that Proposals don't have an MI, but if they do
we can't know anything about them..

Michael.

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


Andre