From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Tue Jun 27 03:21:49 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 DAA26303 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 03:14:01 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id BAA15785 for nomic-official-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 01:12:52 -0700
Received: from wing1.wing.rug.nl (wing1.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.1]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA15704 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 01:12:35 -0700
Message-Id: <199506270812.BAA15704@desiree.teleport.com>
Received: by wing1.wing.rug.nl
	(1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA00374; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 10:13:26 +0200
From: Andre Engels <csg419@wing.rug.nl>
Subject: OFF: Judgement CFJ 783
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 95 10:13:25 METDST
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO


			JUDGEMENT CFJ 783
	("Agora's Rules (in particular 993/1) are currently such...")

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

Judgement:	FALSE

Judge:		Vanyel

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

Caller:		Michael

Barred:		none

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

Changes:	Vanyel gains 3 Points for Timely Judgement

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

History:
  Called by Michael, June 23 1995, 10:29 BST
  Assigned to Vanyel, June 23 1995, 12:22 UTC
  Judged FALSE by Vanyel, June 27 1995, 01:29 -0500 (CDT)

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

Statement & Requested Injunction:

Agora's rules (in particular 993/1) are currently such that Proposals
containing Directives can only be adopted if there are no votes
AGAINST the Proposal.

As this is a rule interpretation judgement, I am required by 789/1 to
include a list of relevant rules.  In this case I believe the list to
include 993/1 and 594/1.  If the Judge should find the statement TRUE,
they may choose to an injunction as per 789.

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

Argument:

594 states:
      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.

993 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.  Any
      Proposal for which this is not true is not properly made.

Only if there were no AGAINST votes can a Proposal containing
Directives pass.  1274/0 defines an ordering on Indices such that a
Proposal with a Voting Index (see 955/2) of Unanimity automatically
has a greater index than any possible Adoption Index.  Otherwise it is
impossible to determine the Voting Index required to adopt the
Proposal. 

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

Judgement: FALSE

Reasoning:
At first I was confused by the argument, but it seems to boil down to
the fact that the Rules seem to provide a lot of lower bounds for AI,
but nothing else.  Yet, by calling in the quoted paragraph of 594, we
see that the AI must be the "minimum...which would allow all the Rule
Changes within the Proposal to take effect."  In the case of a Proposal
with Directives and no Rule Changes, this would be 1, as that is the
minimum AI (1 being the lowest possible AI, also from 594) that would
allow all the Rule Changes therein to take effect (there being none).
Of course, if the Directives require a higher AI, that's fine too--but
they do not absurdly require Unanimity.

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

Andre