From Wed Jun 28 03:36:53 1995
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id DAA00482 for <>; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 03:34:10 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.6.10/8.6.9) id BAA07568 for nomic-official-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 01:33:29 -0700
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA07562 for <>; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 01:33:25 -0700
Message-Id: <>
Received: by
	( id AA21774; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 10:34:34 +0200
From: Andre Engels <>
Subject: OFF: Judgement CFJ 778
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 95 10:34:33 METDST
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

		("The combination of Rules 594/1 and 993/1...")


Judgement:	FALSE

Judge:		Xanadu

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

Caller:		Swann

Barred:		KoJen

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

Effects:	Xanadu receives 3 Points for timely Judgement



"The combination of Rules 594/1 and 993/1 should be interpreted to mean
 that a Proposal can *only* be a Proposal and be legally distributed by
 the Promotor, if *and only if* it contains both a Rule Change *and*
 a Directive."


  Called by Swann, Jun 21 1995, 09:13 MET
  Assigned to Xanadu, Jun 21 1995, 09:54 UTC
  Judged FALSE by Xanadu, Jun 28 1995, 00:10 +1000 (EST)



Kojen does this much better than I, I will repeat Kojen's fantastic
discovery about these two rules:

Message #97 (107 is last):
Date: Tue Jun 20 07:49:04 1995
From: (David Cogen)
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

Submissions have een 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


Obviously the Promotor is privy to great wisdom not granted to
us mere mortals.  To divine such exclusivity inherent within
two separate rules with conditional clauses requires a great
mind.  I am unable to approach such reasoning myself. . .

I must assume that the lack of Kojen's CFJ on this critical and
fundamental matter within the Ruleset must simply be an oversight
and I see it as my duty as an Agora citizen to petition the
Judiciary to accept such fundamental wisdom.

It is, indeed fundamental.  Look at how far-ranging Kojen's 
perceptive argument reaches:

Rule 1451/0:

"A player may disown their own proposal"

Rule 991/0:

"a Player may invoke Judgement"

Rule 692/3:

"A Player may voluntarily transfer Points"

Rule 1440:

"A Player may Erase eir Blots"

Indeed, there is an intricate web of things that "may" be
done, and it is Kojen's legacy to us to take the scales
off of our eyes, to make us aware that the word "may"
does not imply an option at all, it does in fact bear the
weight of a prescriptive *demand* upon us.  It is our
duty to follow such logic when presented in such a 
lucid, effective, and altogether helpful manner.

{Opinions within this CFJ may not necessarily represent
 those of the Caller.}


Judgement & Reasoning of Judge:

I judge the statement to be FALSE.

My reasoning is as follows:

In the opinion of this Judge, the relevant sentences of both rule 594/1 
and rule 993/1 (those beginning "A Proposal may contain ...") state 
nothing more than "the inclusion of Rule Changes and/or Directives in a 
submission that might otherwise be a Proposal does not preclude said 
submission from being a Proposal."

I thus interpret the rules as meaning that the inclusion of one or more 
Rule Changes and Directives in a Proposal is optional; both, one or 
neither may occur.

I believe that this interpretation of the use of "may" in the ruleset is 
in keeping with Game Custom.




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.

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


Rule 993/1 (Mutable, MI=1)

      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

      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.

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


Rule 1451/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Disowning Proposals

      A player may disown their own proposal if it has not yet been
      distributed or if no more than four days have passed since its 
      distribution, by sending a statement disowning it to the Public 

      The player so disowning a proposal loses a flat fee of five
      points, reported by the Assessor, but any other score changes,
      blots, or other effects resulting from the player's submission
      of that proposal, including but not limited to formatting
      penalties, rule repeal rewards, new player bonuses, and awards
      or penalties for votes cast on that proposal are cancelled and
      shall not be taken into account.  The disowning Player does not
      receive any Extra Votes for a Proposal he disowned, even if it

      Neither the Assessor nor any Player who has been Assessor since
      the beginning of the voting period on that proposal may disown a
      proposal, unless that proposal has not yet been distributed. 

      This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which would
      otherwise seek to reward or penalize any player based on the
      disowned proposal. 

Created by Proposal 1549, Apr. 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 692/3 (Mutable, MI=1)
Trading Points

      A Player may voluntarily transfer Points in eir possession to
      any other Player for any purpose, within the following limits:
       (a) the transfer must be posted to the Public Forum
       (b) a Player may only transfer a positive number of Points
       (c) a Player may not transfer more Points than e currently has
       (d) a Player may not transfer Points if the recipient has more
           than than 90% of the Points required to Win, or would pass
           this limit as a result of the transfer.

      If any agreement among Players includes any transfer of Points
      between two Players then each such transfer shall be in
      accordance with the above.  But this Rule shall not be construed
      as having any bearing on the legality or legal enforceability of
      any terms of said agreement which do not involve such a

      All Nomic Entities shall abide by the above limits whenever
      Points are traded.  If a Nomic Entity must trade Points by the
      current Rules but would end up breaking the above limits, then
      the Nomic Entity trades the maximum amount possible without
      breaking any of the above limits.  This Rule shall have
      precedence over all other Rules pertaining to the Trading of

Amended(1) by Proposal 1360, Dec. 13 1994
Amended(2) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1560, Apr. 17 1995


Rule 1440/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Erasing Blots

      A Player may Erase eir Blots by spending five Points for each
      Blot Erased. A Player may Erase any number of Blots as long as e
      does not reduce eir Point total below zero.  A Player with less
      than five Points may not Erase Blots.

      The Player Erasing Blots must report to the Tabulator and the
      Scorekeepor the number of Blots e is Erasing, and the Points
      required to do so.

      If this requires more Points than the Player has at the time of
      the request, then no Blots are erased, and no Points are lost.

      If there are sufficient Points, the Scorekeepor reduces the
      Player's Points by the required amount and the Tabulator reduces
      the Player's Blots as requested.

      Other rules may define additional methods of Erasing Blots.

Created by Proposal 1461, Mar. 1 1995


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