From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Fri Jun 23 07:44:46 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 HAA12876 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 07:36:46 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id FAA12065 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 05:34:55 -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 FAA12051 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 05:34:49 -0700
Message-Id: <199506231234.FAA12051@desiree.teleport.com>
Received: by wing4.wing.rug.nl
	(1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA04775; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 14:34:59 +0200
From: Andre Engels <csg419@wing.rug.nl>
Subject: OFF: Judgement CFJ 779
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 14:34:59 METDST
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

I forgot the 'Effects of this CFJ'-part. I publicly apologize for that, and
hope I can still repair my mistake.

Andre.

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

			JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 779
		("Rule 1466 should be interpreted such that...")

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

Judgement:	TRUE

Judge:		Michael

Caller:		Chuck

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

Barred:		none

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

Effects of this CFJ:
  Michael receives 5 Points for Speedy Judgement.
  The Scorekeeport is required to annotate 1466 as described in the
   Injunction

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

History:
  Called by Chuck, June 21 1995, 19:16 +0200
  Assigned to Michael, June 22 1995, 09:58 UTC
  Judged TRUE by Michael, June 23 1995, 10:53 BST
 
======================================================================

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 Adoption
Index greater than 1, has a Adoption Index of 1.

Relevant Rules: 1466, 594, 993

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

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.)

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

Arguments:

(This is essentially a resubmission of CFJ 769, with an unfortunate
miswording corrected.)

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.

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

Judgement: TRUE

Argument: 

  As the caller points out in their attached argument, rule 1466 fails
  to use the appropriate language to specify an AI for a proposal
  containing a Currency Directive.  Instead, the rule mistakenly
  attempts to define an AI for the directive itself, a meaningless
  concept.

  Examples of the correct way to word specifications of AIs for
  Proposals containing Directives can be found in the 1006/2
  (Directives to install an Officer), 1054/1 (Changing the category of
  a rule), 1052/1 (Creating new rule categories) and 649/1 (Patent
  titles). 

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

Injunction:
  
  As allowed for by 789, I require the Scorekeepor to annotate rule
  1466 with the Statement above, and the list of relevant rules
  (provided with the CFJ).

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

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

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

Andre