From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Mon Jun 26 04:51:44 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 EAA19852 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 04:40:37 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id CAA01778 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 02:39:49 -0700
Received: from wing4.wing.rug.nl (wing4.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.4]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id CAA01773 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 02:39:45 -0700
Message-Id: <199506260939.CAA01773@desiree.teleport.com>
Received: by wing4.wing.rug.nl
	(1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA18830; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 11:39:55 +0200
From: Andre Engels <csg419@wing.rug.nl>
Subject: OFF: Judgement CFJ 776
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 95 11:39:55 METDST
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

			JUDGEMENT CFJ 776
	(KoJen failed in eir legal duty as Promotor...)

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

Judge:		Vanyel

Judgement:	FALSE

Eligible:	Andre, Chuck, Dave B., elJefe, Ian, JonRock, Kelly,
		Michael, SugarWater, Swann, Troublemaker At Large,
		Vanyel, Xanadu, Steve

Caller:		Zefram

Barred:		KoJen

Not Eligible:	Zefram (caller)
		KoJen (barred)
		Blob (1005)
		Coren, Pascal (On Hold & 1005)

Point Changes:	Vanyel gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement.

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

History:
  Called by Zefram Jun 20 1995, 15:42 +0100
  Assigned to Vanyel Jun 21 1995, 08:22 UTC
  Assignment upheld Jun 21 1995, 09:37 UTC
  Judged FALSE by Vanyel, Jun 23 1995, 09:53 -0500 (CDT)

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

Statement:

"KoJen failed in eir legal duty as Promotor, by failing to distribute
 legally submitted Proposals from JonRock, Steve, Swann and Andre.  Eir
 Promotor's Report of 20th June 1995 was therefore in error, in that it
 did not list valid Proposals that e had received."

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

Arguments:

On 20th June 1995, KoJen posted an official Promotor's Report to the
Public Forum.  In it e claimed to have received nine Proposals, but
claimed that none were valid Proposals due to the fact that none of
them contained both a Rule Change and a Directive.

Rules 594/1 and 993/1 do not require proposals to contain either Rule
Changes or Directives.  KoJen's interpretation is entirely wrong.  At
least some of the nine proposals e received are valid, and under rule
1036/2 e is therefore legally required to officially distribute them.

This argument hinges upon the unclear wording of rules 594/1 and
993/1.  I claim that the normal English interpretation of the words "a
Proposal may contain one or more ..." in that context would be "a
Proposal may, optionally, contain one or more ..." rather than "a
Proposal must contain one or more ...".  I arrive at this
interpretation, in part, because the words are part of rules that
*describes* certain aspects of Proposals, rather than being a
definitive *definition* of a Proposal.

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

Requested Injunction:

That KoJen's Promotor's Report of 20th June be retracted, and that
KoJen submit a corrected Promotor's Report, and that rules 594/1 and
993/1 be annotated in accordance with rule 789/1.

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

Judgement: FALSE

Reasoning:

I began to gather evidence on this CFJ, when suddenly I realized that it
didn't matter whether KoJen was holding back Proposals (which is my
personal belief), as none of the "Proposals" seem to have been sent in
before 13 June.  Therefore, his Promotor's Report was not, I regret to
say, in error.  I can't even call the ASAP Rule into evidence, as the
Promotor's Report of 20 Jun was not anything required of em, but rather
more along the lines of "discussion".

Vanyel

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1036/2 (Mutable, MI=1)
Making and Distributing Proposals

      Let there be an Officer called the Promotor.
      The Promotor shall receive a weekly salary of 3 Points.
      A Proposal by a Player shall be made by submitting it to the
      Promotor. As soon as possible after receiving the Proposal, the
      Promotor shall assign the Proposal a Number.
      Within seven (7) days of the receipt of the Proposal, and not
      later than any subsequently received Proposal, the Promotor
      shall distribute the numbered Proposal to all Players.

      At the same time e shall distribute any text not part of the
      proposal which is required to be submitted with it, but eir
      failure to do so shall not deprive the act of distributing the
      Proposal of the effects which it would otherwise have.

History:
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1530, Mar. 24 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1546, Apr. 14 1995

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 95 07:49:04 -0400
From: cogen@ll.mit.edu (David Cogen)
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Subject: OFF: Promotor's Report

Several Players have been after me to get the Promotor's Report out. I
apologize for the delay. I have been studying the Rules pertaining to the
duties of the Promotor, and soliciting the valued opinions of our Wisest
Players. 

Submissions have been received from JonRock (4), Steve (3), Swann (1), and
Andre (1).

None of these are Proposals. 

By R594, a Proposal may contain one or more Rule Changes. By R993, a Proposal
may contain one or more Directives. Together, they require a Proposal to
contain at least one Rule Change *and* at least one Directive. None of the
submissions met this requirement.

Clearly, Rules 594 and 993 need to be amended. Watch for a proto, immediately
following this message.

(When I began to study the Rules relating to the Promotor, I neither expected
nor desired this outcome. But I am convinced that no other interpretation is
reasonable. How could we have overlooked this before?)

-- KoJen

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 95 10:01:08 -0400
From: cogen@ll.mit.edu (David Cogen)
To: nomic-business@teleport.com
Subject: Re: BUS: COE: Promotor's Report

Zefram sez:

> I hereby make a Claim of Error concerning the Promotor's Report by the
> Promotor, dated 20th June 1995.
> 
> Specifically, I claim that the Promotor has in fact received more than
> the zero valid proposals listed in eir Report, and e is therefore
> required by rule 1036/2 to distribute them.

I hereby deny this Claim of Error.

The Promotor's Report was correct because no valid proposals have been
received. 

-- KoJen

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


Andre