From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Fri Jun 23 03:59:46 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 DAA12317 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 03:52:46 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id BAA25251 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 01:52:23 -0700
Received: from wing1.wing.rug.nl (wing1.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.1]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA25241 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 01:52:15 -0700
Message-Id: <199506230852.BAA25241@desiree.teleport.com>
Received: by wing1.wing.rug.nl
	(1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA17647; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 10:52:47 +0200
From: Andre Engels <csg419@wing.rug.nl>
Subject: OFF: Judgement CFJ 775
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 10:52:47 METDST
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO


			JUDGMENT OF CFJ 775
	(The Clerk of the Courts violated Rule 1431/1...)

######################################################################

Judge:		Zefram

Judgement:	FALSE

Eligible:	Andre, Chuck, Dave Bowen, elJefe, Ian, JonRock, Kelly,
		KoJen, Michael, Steve, SugarWater, TAL, Vanyel,
		Xanadu, Zefram

Caller:		Swann

Not Eligible:	Swann (caller)
		Blob (1005)
		Coren, Pascal (1005 & On Hold)

Effects of this CFJ:
  Zefram gains 3 Points for timely Judgement

######################################################################

History:

	Called by Swann, June 18 1995, 11:33 MET
	Assigned to Zefram, June 18 1995, 12:48 UTC
	Judged FALSE by Zefram, June 22 1995, 08:53 +0100 (BST)

######################################################################

Statement:

"The Clerk of the Courts violated Rule 1431/1 by distributing CFJ 772,
 CFJ 722, and the Appeal of CFJ 771. (This statement makes no allegation
 concerning the validity of these documents.)"

######################################################################

Arguments:

On Thu, 15 Jun 95 12:17:36 Kelly posted a COE to the Public Forum:

  "I claim that the Clerk of the Courts erred, in claiming that the
   document issued as CFJ 771 is actually a legal CFJ."

As far as I can determine, the current CotC has yet to respond to
affirm or deny any of the COEs pending against the Clerk's Office.

However, rule 1431/1 mandates:

     "The Respondant shall immediately investigate the claim of error,
      and, as soon as possible after the posting of the claim, either
      admit the claim and issue an official correction to the document,
      or deny the claim."

And rule 1023/2 defines "as soon as possible" as:

     "within a week, and no later than any other action e is
      subsequently required to perform."

The Clerk's distribution of statements to be Judged is an action
e is required to perform (Rule 991/0):

     "The Clerk of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be
      judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players."

The CotC distributed the first CFJ 772 on Fri, 16 Jun 95 11:07:41
METDST, *after* Kelly's COE, but *before* responding to it.  Therefore
the CotC is in violation of Rule 1431/1.

This is not trivial.  If the Clerk, for instance, admits Kelly's Claim
then every subsequent CFJ needs to be renumbered.  Considering the
volume of recent CFJs, a delay in addressing any of the COEs-- two
of which allege that distributed CFJs are not legitimate-- will cause
needless legal confusion.

Note: This CFJ, if found TRUE, will not deprive any other CFJ of its
legal force.  To quote 1023/2:

     "This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its 
      requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have."

By extension, the Clerk's violation of the "as soon as possible"
clause of 1431/1 does not deprive the distributed CFJs and Appeals
of the effects they would have had the Clerk observed the Rule.

Further note:  The violation of "as soon as possible" incurs a
penalty of 10 points (Rule 1023/2) and of 1 Blot (Rule 1439/0) if
this is found TRUE, Tabulator take note.

######################################################################

Decision: FALSE

######################################################################

Reasoning and Comments:

For the second time this week, a CFJ has failed due to a typo in the
statement.  I will first discuss what would have happened to this
judgment if the statement had instead been "The Clerk of the Courts
violated Rule 1431/1 by distributing CFJ 772, CFJ 772, and the Appeal
of CFJ 771. (This statement makes no allegation concerning the validity
of these documents.)", assuming that the two "CFJ 772"s refer to the
two CFJs given the number 772, the second of which should have been CFJ
773.

In that case, Swann's argument (above) would be entirely correct. Kelly
did post a legal Claim of Error to the Public Forum, requiring Andre
(the Clerk of the Courts) to respond "as soon as possible".  Andre
subsequently distributed two CFJ 772s, and the appeal of CFJ 771, as
the rules require.  He therefore neglected to respond to the COE as
soon as possible, in violation of 1431/1.  Thus such a CFJ would be
judged TRUE.

The actual statement in CFJ 775 contained a reference to CFJ 722.  The
salient points concerning CFJ 722 are: (a) its posting was not in
violation of rule 1431/1; and (b) it was posted on 15th November 1994,
when Vanyel was the CotC.  Therefore in order for the (correct)
argument given in CFJ 775 to be relevant to the statement, it is
necessary for it to be decided that: (a) the statement does not state
that *each* of the required posts violated rule 1431/1, but merely that
*the three combined* violated rule 1431/1; and (b) the words "the Clerk
of the Courts" in the statement refer to *whoever held the office at
the appropriate time*, rather than to *the current Clerk of the
Courts*, namely Andre.

To explain the above: as the posting of CFJ 722 did not violate rule
1431/1, then an interpretation of the statement that it states that
*each* of the posts violated rule 1431/1 would make the statement
FALSE.  However, if the statement meant that "distributing CFJ 772, CFJ
722, and the Appeal of CFJ 771" should be taken as a single action
(gramatically), then it is clear that this action did violate rule
1431/1, making that part of the statement TRUE.

If the words "the Clerk of the Courts" are taken to refer to Andre
specifically, then the statement is FALSE because Andre did not
distribute CFJ 722.  That is, unless he made some unrecorded and
otherwise legally insignificant distribution of CFJ 722, that I cannot
confirm.  If "the Clerk of the Courts" is taken to mean the official
position, rather than Andre, then it is TRUE that the Clerk of the
Courts distributed CFJ 722, as well as the other CFJs mentioned.

Note that the creation date of rule 1431/1 is not at all relevant to
the question of whether CFJ 722 violated it.  It is simply the case
that to have done so would not be illegal, and hence that allegation
alone would not be sufficient basis for a legal CFJ under rule 662/1.
However, the other parts of the statement, regardless of
interpretation, do clearly allege that certain Moves were illegal.

On the two interpretation matters, I rule as follows:  the matter of
whether the statement treats "distributing CFJ 772, CFJ 722, and the
Appeal of CFJ 771" as a single action I judge to be FALSE, after
enquiring of the Caller which meaning he had intended.  Whether "the
Clerk of the Courts" refers to the position rather than the incumbent
at the time of the CFJ, I judge TRUE, because rule 889/1 (Clerk of the
Courts) clearly states "there shall exist an Office "Clerk of the
Courts"...".

Hence I must judge FALSE, on the grounds that distribution of CFJ 722
did not violate rule 1431/1.

######################################################################

References & Evidence:

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

Rule 1023/2 (Mutable, MI=1)
Definition of "As Soon As Possible"

      Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action 
      "as soon as possible", e is required to perform that action 
      within a week, and no later than any other action e is
      subsequently required to perform.  Failure to observe these time
      requirements shall result at a minimum in the incursion of a 10
      point penalty; other Rules may impose further penalties.
      However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded
      from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.

      This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its 
      requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. 
      Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be 
      performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without
      incurring a Penalty.  It takes precedence over other Rules which
      define a later latest time for the performance of these actions.
      Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this
      Rule defers to them.

      This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of
      Players who are On Hold.
      (*Was: 805/907*)

History:

Created by Proposal 805 [date unknown]
Amended by Proposal 907 [date unknown]
Amended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995

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

Rule 991/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Invoking Judgement

      If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the
      interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may
      invoke Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the
      Clerk of the Courts.  Disagreement, for the purposes of this
      Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player.  When
      Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as
      possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules.  The Clerk
      of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged,
      along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players.

      No Player shall submit more than five CFJ's per week.
      (*Was: 407*)

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

Rule 1431/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
Claims of Error

      If a Player, hereafter called the Claimant, believes any
      official report or document to contain an error, e shall post to
      the Public Forum a statement that e believes the report to be in
      error, specifying the nature of the error, and requesting the
      Player responsible for the document, hereafter called the
      Respondant, to correct the error.  The Respondant shall
      immediately investigate the claim of error, and, as soon as
      possible after the posting of the claim, either admit the claim
      and issue an official correction to the document, or deny the
      claim.  Such admission or denial shall be posted to the Public
      Forum.

      If and only if the Respondant does not admit the claim, the
      Claimant may, within one week of the posted denial (or the
      expiration of any prescribed time limit for the Respondant's
      response), make a Call for Judgement alleging the document to be
      in error.

      If the Respondant does not admit the claim and a subsequent Call
      for Judgement finds that the claim is true, the Respondant shall
      lose 5 points.  The Claimant is responsible for reporting this
      score change when it occurs.  There is no penalty under this
      Rule if the Respondant admits the claim and corrects the error
      without a Call for Judgement having been made.

      A claim is illegal and may not be made if:
        a) another claim has previously been made alleging the same
           error, unless this prior claim was not admitted and the
           time limit to make a CFJ has expired;
        b) the document containing the error was published more than
           21 days prior to the claim; or
        c) the Player making the claim is the same as the Player
           responsible for the document alleged to be in error.
        d) the report in error has been superceded by another report.
      
      For the purpose of this Rule, an "offical report or document" is
      any report or document which an Officer (or the Speaker) is
      required to maintain by the Rules in the course of eir duties as
      that Officer (or as Speaker), and an "error" is the omission or
      inclusion of any information which causes the official report or
      document to allege that the Game State is in any way different
      than it actually is.

      No Call for Judgement may be made alleging that a document
      contains errors except as prescribed in this Rule.

      This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which might allow a
      Call for Judgement prohibited by this Rule to be made, or which
      might prohibit a Call for Judgement permitted by the Rule from
      being made.


History:
Created by Proposal 1431, Feb. 7 1995
Amended(1) by Proposal 1491, Mar. 15 1995

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

Rule 1439/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Blots Due to a CFJ

      If a Call For Judgment (CFJ) clearly alleging that a Player has
      violated a specific Rule is found to be TRUE, the Player
      receives Blots equal to the Mutability Index of the violated
      Rule rounded down to the nearest whole integer, or four Blots if
      its Mutability Index exceeds four.  This Rule defers to the
      wording of the violated Rule when it defines a Blot penalty in
      the specific case of a CFJ, or specifically forbids Blot
      penalties in the case of a CFJ.

      The Player who initially called for the CFJ has the Legal
      Responsibility to report Blots due to the CFJ to the Tabulator.

History:
Created by Proposal 1460, Mar. 1 1995

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

From: Andre Engels <csg419@wing.rug.nl>
Subject: OFF: Assignment CFJ 772
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 95 11:07:41 METDST
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com

			ASSIGNMENT CFJ 772
	(The injunction issued by Judge Ian in CFJ 771 is Illegal)

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

Judge:		Vanyel

[ CFJ text deleted for brevity ]

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

From: Andre Engels <csg419@wing.rug.nl>
Subject: OFF: Assignment CFJ 772
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 95 11:02:33 METDST
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com

			ASSIGNMENT CFJ 772
		(Player Swann committed an illegal act...)

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

Judge:		Dave Bowen

[ CFJ text deleted for brevity ]

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

From: Andre Engels <csg419@wing.rug.nl>
Subject: OFF: Assignment Appeal CFJ 771
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 95 10:45:50 METDST
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com


		ASSIGNMENT UPON APPEAL OF CFJ 771
	(Swann was not Tabulator when Kelly spent 5 points...)

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

  Judgement: TRUE

  Judge: Ian

[ Appeal text deleted for brevity ]

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

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 95 12:17:36
From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us
To: nomic-business@teleport.com
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com

I claim that the Clerk of the Courts erred, in claiming that the
document issued as CFJ 771 is actually a legal CFJ.

######################################################################

Additional References & Evidence:

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

Rule 662/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
Allowed CFJ's

      A "Move" refers to any specific action taken by a Player or
      group of Players in the context of the game. Any invocation of
      Judgement must satisfy one or more of the following conditions:

          - clearly allege that a specific Move is illegal;
          - clearly allege that a specific Rule is illegal or lacking
            in legal force, in whole or in part;
          - clearly allege that a specific Rule ought to be
            interpreted in a certain way.
          - clearly allege, either implicitly or explicitly, that the
            Rules generally ought to be interpreted in a certain way.
          - clearly allege that the current published game state is
            incorrect, and in what respects.

      A CFJ which does not satisfy at least one of the above
      conditions shall be deemed invalid and shall not be accepted for
      Judgement by the Clerk of the Courts. However, this Rule shall
      defer to rules which explictly permit CFJs that do not
      necessarily meet the above conditions.

History:
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1486, Mar. 15 1995

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

Rule 889/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
Clerk of the Courts

      There shall exist an Office "Clerk of the Courts", who shall
      have general responsibility over administering Calls for
      Judgement, as outlined in the Rules.

      The Clerk's salary shall be five points.

History:
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1441, Feb. 21 1995

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

+-----------------| CFJ #722 |------------------+
| Caller: Troublemaker at Large  Date: 15.11.94 |
| Barred:                                       |
| Ineligible: KoJen                             |
+-----------------------------------------------+
| Judge: Nicol            Date Judged: MISTAKE  | 
|   Reassigned 15.11.94@ 22:05 CST              |
| Judge: Down with 815!   Date Judged: 16.11.94 |
| Judgment: FALSE                               |
+-----------------------------------------------+

[ Text of Judgment deleted for brevity ]

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

Date: Wed,  9 Nov 94 09:58:44 -0500
From: cogen@ll.mit.edu (David Cogen)
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Subject: OFF: Registrar's Reports

I sent this yesterday but it didn't appear.


==== AGORA NOMIC REGISTRAR'S REPORTS=========================================


      DATE OF LAST REPORT : 11/01/94
      DATE OF THIS REPORT : 11/08/94


[ News section, Player Lists and Milestones deleted for brevity ]
    
===== 3.0 BLUE PAGES =========================================================

{Listing of Officers, the Speaker; etc. Please see White Pages for addresses.
Please see Group Report for Group Officers, which should be considered part of
the Blue Pages for the purpose of satisfication of the Blue Pages Rule.}


SPEAKER                 : the Pink Bimbo

OFFICERS:
    Ambassador          : Down with 815!
    Archivist           : Vanyel
    Assistant           : Coren
    Banker              : the Pink Bimbo
    Clerk Of The Courts : Vanyel
    Distributor         : Coren
    Herald              : Lee
    Justiciar           : Troublemaker at Large
    Registrar           : KoJen
    Rulekeepor          : Down with 815!
    Scorekeepor         : Troublemaker at Large
    Sweepstakes Officer : Coren

[ Special Listings, Group Report, Hall of Fame and Yellow Pages deleted for
brevity ]

######################################################################

Andre