From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Mon Jun 26 06:06:49 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 GAA20282 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 06:01:05 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id EAA07169 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 04:00:24 -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 EAA07160 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 04:00:20 -0700
Message-Id: <199506261100.EAA07160@desiree.teleport.com>
Received: by wing4.wing.rug.nl
	(1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA20429; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 13:00:30 +0200
From: Andre Engels <csg419@wing.rug.nl>
Subject: OFF: Judgement CFJ 777
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 95 13:00:30 METDST
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

				ASSIGNMENT CFJ 777
		("The Clerk of the Courts violated Rule 1431/1...")

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

Judgement:	

Judge:		Steve

Eligible:	Chuck, Dave B., elJefe, Ian, JonRock, KoJen,
		Michael, Steve, SugarWater, TaL, Vanyel, Xanadu,
		Zefram

Caller:		Swann

Barred:		Andre, Kelly

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

Effects:	Steve receives 3 Points for Speedy Judgement
		Andre looses 10 Points for violating 1023
		Andre must submit a Formal Apology as described in
		  the injunction

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

History:
  Called by Swann, Jun 21 1995, 02:22 -0400
  Assigned to Steve, Jun 21 1995, 09:18 UTC
  Judged TRUE by Steve, Jun 26 1995, 13:06 +1000 (EST)

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

Statement:

"The Clerk of the Courts violated Rule 1431/1 by distributing CFJ 772,
 CFJ 772 (subsequently renumbered 773), 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.

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

Judgement: TRUE

Arguments:

Swann's arguments are clear and his allegations are borne out by the
evidence attached to his CFJ, to wit: that CotC Andre distributed
2 CFJs and a notice of Appeal subsequent to Kelly's having made a
COE, but prior to his having responded to the COE. This contravenes
the partial ordering placed on the actions of the CotC by Rule 1023.

Injunctions:

I therefore issue the following two Injunctions: 

1. Andre is penalized 10 points for his violation of Rule 1023.

The second Injunction is required by Rule 908:

2. Andre must submit a Formal Apology. The list of Prescribed Words
is as follows:

Never in the field of human conflict have so many

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

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.  Disagrement, 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.


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

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