From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Mon Jul 17 03:53:39 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 DAA06040 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 03:42:58 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id BAA21935 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 01:39:46 -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 BAA21927 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 01:39:42 -0700
Message-Id: <199507170839.BAA21927@desiree.teleport.com>
Received: by wing1.wing.rug.nl
	(1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA28604; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 10:40:28 +0200
From: Andre Engels <csg419@wing.rug.nl>
Subject: OFF: CFJ 785: Judgement
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 95 10:40:26 METDST
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

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

			JUDGEMENT CFJ 785
	("The first injunction issued by Judge Steve...")

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

Judge:		JonRock
		SugarWater

Judgement:      [ Elysion: judged TRUE; this was not originally noted here ]

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

Caller:		Kelly

Barred:		Steve, Andre

Not Eligible:	Blob (either 1005 or not a Player)
		Coren (either On Hold & 1005 or Not a Player)
		Pascal (On Hold & 1005)
		Kelly (caller)
		Steve, Andre (barred)
		JonRock (defaulted)

Effects:	JonRock gains 3 Blots for defaulting Judgement and
		  is not anymore eligible to be a Judge.
		SugarWater gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement
		Steve must submit a Formal Apology containing the
		  words selected by the Judge.

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

History:
  Called by Kelly, June 29 1995, 01:50 EST5
  Assigned to JonRock, July 5 1995, 08:21 UTC
  Defaulted by JonRock, July 12 1995, 08:21 UTC
  Re-assigned to SugarWater, July 13 1995, 08:44 UTC
  Judged TRUE by SugarWater, July 14 1995, 21:12 -0700 (PDT)

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

Statement: The first Injunction issued by Judge Steve in CFJ 777 is
illegal.

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

Argument:

Rule 663/1 only permits a Judge to make those Injunctions which are
specifically authorized in the Rules.  Steve's first Injunction,
"Andre is penalized 10 points for his violation of Rule 1023" is not
of a type permitted by the Rules.  The Rules only authorize three
sorts of Injunction, and the Injunction under question is not one of
these three.

Rule 665/0 permits an Injunction to retract an illegal move and the
consequences thereof; however, this Injunction assessess a penalty
mandated by the Rules, which is not a retraction of a move or an
adjustment resulting from the retraction of said illegal move; if
anything, the penalty is a consequence of the illegal move, and
retracting the Move would also retract the penalty, not enforce it.

Rule 789/1 permits an Injunction to annotate a Rule; clearly this
Injunction does not seek this.

Finally, Rule 908/3 permits a Judge to issue an Injunction which
specifies a list of prescribed Rules which a Ninny must use in a
Formal Apology mandated by that same Rule.  Judge Steve's first
Injunction is not of this sort either.

Since the Injunction in question is not of a form permitted by the
Rules, it is illegal and has no legal force.

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

Decision & Injunction:

Judgement: TRUE 


Injunction: 

	As per rule 908/3, Player Steve must submit a Formal Apology,
containing the following Prescribed Words:  

chiaroscuro belletrist sabre-rattling curmudgeon angst

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

Reasoning: 

	It is clear that the injunction in question is neither a Rule
annotation nor a call for Formal Apology, and, therefore, does not fall
under the auspices of rule 789/1 or 908/3. 
	This requires that, for the Injunction to be legal, it must be of
the type described in rule 665/0 -- namely, "specifying that the move is
to be retracted, and any resulting adjustments to the game state". 
	The injunction in question clearly does not mandate the retraction
of a move.  It is, therefore, illegal, and the Caller's statement is TRUE. 

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

Evidence:

I. Rule 663/1
II. Rule 665/0
III. Rule 789/1
IV. Rule 903/3
V. CFJ 777, incorporated by reference

-------I.

Rule 663/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
Injunctions--General

      There shall be an entity known as an Injunction, which may
      accompany certain Judgements of TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDABLE as
      provided in the rules. An Injunction is a statement or series of
      statements specifying an action or actions which must take
      place. If a Judgement is is accompanied by an Injunction, that
      Injunction must be published with the Judgement. All players
      must abide by the Injunction beginning no later than 72 hours
      after its publication unless one of the following conditions
      then apply:
        - The Judgement which the Injunction accompanies is undergoing
          appeal, currently UNKNOWN as a consequence of the appeal
          process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but a proposal
          has been published which would overturn that decision if
          passed, and said proposal has not failed.
        - The validity of the Injunction itself is questioned by a
          pending CFJ.
        - A Judgement upholding the validity of the Injunction is
          undergoing appeal, currently UNKNOWN as a consequence of
          the appeal process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but
          a proposal has been published which would overturn that
          decision if passed, and said proposal has not failed.

      A Judgement may not be accompanied by an Injunction unless it is
      specifically permitted elsewhere in the rules. An Injunction
      must be completely consistent with all rules in effect at the
      time of issuance, and must be completely relevant to the matter
      addressed in the corresponding judgement.

      If any Player believes that an Injunction or any part of it does
      not meet the criteria for a valid Injunction, e may submit a CFJ
      to that effect. If the resulting Judgement supports the
      contention that the criteria are not met, the Injunction shall
      be considered illegal and shall have no legal force.

      This rule takes precedence over all rules governing Injunctions.

History:
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995

-------II.

Rule 665/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Injuction--Retracting an Illegal Move

      If a CFJ alleges that a specific Move is illegal, and the
      Judgement supports the allegation, the Judge may include with
      the Judgement an Injunction specifying that the move is to be
      retracted, and any resulting adjustments to the published game
      state. The adjustments to the game state must have been
      unambiguously specified within the CFJ, and these adjustments
      must only undo actions which were a direct or indirect result of
      that Move.

-------III.

Rule 789/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
Injunctions on Interpretations of Rules

      When a player makes a CFJ alleging that a Rule should be
      interpreted in a certain way, e shall also submit a list of
      Rules relevant to that CFJ, which must include the Rule in
      question.  If the statement is Judged TRUE, the Judge may
      include with the Judgement an Injuction requiring the Rulekeepor
      to annotate the Rule in question with the Statement in the CFJ
      and the list of relevant Rules.

      The annotation shall remain only until one of the Rules in the
      list of relevant Rules is changed in any way; or until a CFJ
      determines that the injunction no longer applies, as described
      below.  While it remains, it shall guide the application of that
      Rule.

      If a Player believes that the circumstances which led to the
      Judgement no longer prevail and the annotation is therefore no
      longer applicable, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is
      Judged TRUE, the annotation shall be stricken from the rule set.

History:
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1396, Jan. 29 1995

-------IV.

Rule 908/3 (Mutable, MI=1)
Formal Apologies

      If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Player (herein called the 
      Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in 
      violation of one or more Rules, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE,
      then the Ninny must submit to the Public Forum a Formal Apology
      within 72 hours of the publication of Judgement, unless that
      Judgement is successfully appealed within 72 hours.

      By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words,
      con-taining all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed)
      ex-plaining the Ninny's error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire
      for self-improvement.

      A Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction
      including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge's
      choice, and ordering that the Ninny's Formal Apology must
      include the Prescribed Words.

      If the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots.

      The Player who called the initial CFJ has the duty to report to
      the Tabulator any Blots gained through this rule.

History:
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1362, Dec. 13 1994
Amended(2) by Proposal 1382, Jan. 17 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1500, Mar. 24 1995

======================================================================-

Andre