From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Fri Jul  7 07:49:33 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 HAA00234 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Fri, 7 Jul 1995 07:45:55 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id EAA02691 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 1995 04:00:17 -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 DAA02618 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Fri, 7 Jul 1995 03:59:49 -0700
Message-Id: <199507071059.DAA02618@desiree.teleport.com>
Received: by wing4.wing.rug.nl
	(1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA25312; Fri, 7 Jul 1995 12:59:43 +0200
From: Andre Engels <csg419@wing.rug.nl>
Subject: OFF: CFJ 781: Correction
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 95 12:59:43 METDST
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

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

			JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 781 (CORRECTED)
		("The correct interpretation of Rule 1466...")

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

Judge:		Michael (defaulted)
		KoJen

Judgement:	FALSE

Caller:		Troublemaker At Large

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

Not Eligible:	Troublemaker At Large (caller)
		Blob (1005)
		Coren, Pascal (1005 & On Hold)
		Michael (defaulted)

Effect:		Michael gains 3 Blots and is not eligible anymore
		 as a Judge. BEWARE! The 10 Point loss given earlier
		 does NOT apply.
		KoJen gains 3 Points for timely Judgement.
		Rule 1446 should be annotated as described in
		the Judge's Injunction

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

History:
  Called by TAL, June 22 1995, 13:16 SET
  Assigned to Michael, June 23 1995, 09:00 UTC
  Defaulted by Michael, June 30 1995, 09:00 UTC
  Assigned to KoJen, June 30 1995, 15:50 UTC
  Judged FALSE by KoJen, July 6 1995, 15:56 -0400

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

Statement:

The correct interpretation of Rule 1466 implies that it does not
limit the effect of a Currency Directive on adoption to only one
moment in time.

Requested injunction:

I 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.)

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

Decision & Injunction:

My judgement on CFJ781 is FALSE.

Injunction: Rule 1446 shall be annotated as follows:

    This Rule should be interpeted such that a Currency Directive causes a
    one-time change to a Treasury, in the same manner as in involuntary
    transfer.

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

Arguments:

According to 1446 a Currency Directive has the
effect of specifying the Currency holdings contained in some
Treasury. However, nowhere in the Rules it is said for how long
the Currency Directive remains effective.

1446 states only "if adopted", which excludes the CD from having
any effect before the adoption of the Proposal containing the CD, but
learns us nothing about the time of application, after adoption.

The generic Rule on Directives 993, doesn't help either. In its first
paragraph it uses exactly the same wording:

"A Directive, if adopted, causes some change in the Game State other
than changing a Rule."

The second paragraph claims:
"If a Proposal containing Directives is adopted, the Directives
 shall take effect in the order that they appear in the Proposal"
which changes the starting moment a little bit, but nothing more.

In fact, none of the other Directives has an effectiveness that is
limited to one specific moment in time.
So why should the Currency Directive?

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

Reasoning of Judge:

At first, I almost thought that TRUE *might* be a plausible ruling because of
this phrase in Rule 1466:

    If adopted, they have the effect of specifying the Currency holdings
    contained in an Entity or Entities' Treasury or Treasuries.

The word is "specify" rather than "set". "Specify" has connotations which *can*
imply a lasting influence, contrasted with "set" which implies an action at a
specific instant. Note that most other Directives do not create this ambiguity,
because the action caused by most other Directives is described using a verb
which, like "set", clearly implies an action applied at a specific instant.

So Rule 1466, alone among all Directives, is ambiguous as to whether it implies
a continuous effect (in this case, on a Currency, nullifying all other attempts
to change the Currency).

How do we handle this?

Several ways.

1) "Common sense". It is clearly a ludicrous interpretation that a Currency
Directive can serve as a permanent impediment to any change to that Currency,
even as amounts are added and removed to that treasury by voluntary and
involuntary transfers. 

Of course, common sense is used as a last resort in Agora, but I believe it was
used in other recent judgements. (Who said, "if there are two interpretations,
one of which leads to contradictions and ther other of which does not, use the
one which does not"?) I believe that is applicable here.

2) A perhaps more convincing way to solve the ambiguity, and justify the ruling
of FALSE, is in Rule 993 itself. The second paragraph contains the sentence:

      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 defining Rule for Directives clearly explains how to order multiple
Directives which occur in a single Proposal. But if a Directive could cause a
continuous action into the future, then such ordering would be unnecessary, and
would not even make sense. Thus I am forced to conclude that Rule 993 clearly
defines Directives to cause an action to occur at a specific instant in time
only. 

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

References:

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.

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.


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

Andre