From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Wed Jul  5 05:52:08 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 FAA07111 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Wed, 5 Jul 1995 05:41:46 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id DAA03652 for nomic-official-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 1995 03:41:07 -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 DAA03632 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Wed, 5 Jul 1995 03:40:58 -0700
Message-Id: <199507051040.DAA03632@desiree.teleport.com>
Received: by wing4.wing.rug.nl
	(1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA00675; Wed, 5 Jul 1995 12:41:04 +0200
From: Andre Engels <csg419@wing.rug.nl>
Subject: OFF: CFJ 786: Judgement
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 95 12:41:03 METDST
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

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

			JUDGEMENT CFJ 786
		("The rules ought to be interpreted in such a way...")

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

Judge:		Troublemaker At Large

Judgement:	TRUE

Eligible:	Andre, Chuck, Dave Bowen, Ian, JonRock, Kelly, KoJen,
		Michael, SugarWater, Swann, Troublemaker At Large, Vanyel
		Zefram

Caller:		elJefe

Barred:		none

Not Eligible:	elJefe (Caller)
		Coren (1005)
		Pascal, Steve, Xanadu (On Hold)

Effects:	TAL gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement

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

History:
  Called by elJefe, July 3 1995, 21:21 +0200
  Assigned to TAL, July 4 1995, 09:48 UTC
  Judged TRUE by TAL, July 5 1995, 10:15 +0200

==========================================================================
Statement:
  The rules ought to be interpreted in such a way that the submission
  distributed as Proposal 1614 is not a properly made Proposal, and
  should not be voted upon.

==========================================================================
Argument:
  I personally would prefer if the Rules allowed 1614 to be voted 
  upon and not take effect; however, the Rules are not currently 
  written this way, and this is the only way to prevent the Proposal 
  from being effective.

  I am also not specifically claiming the KoJen broke the Rules,
  or that a particular report is in error.  This is just an 
  interpretation CFJ.

  Rule 1003 forbids Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to
  coerce a player into voting against eir conscience.  The commentary
  accompanying the Proposal makes this intent explicit. Such a
  proposal is considered not to be "proposed in the proper way". 
  (Rule 1003)

  Rule 106 only requires a vote for "Proposals made in the proper way."

  Further, Rule 1003 claims precedence over other rules which would 
  otherwise allow such a shameful proposal to be voted upon, such as 
  Rule 683, 957, etc.

  The question arises as to the possible effects on Rule 1003 of its
  infection by the Nomic Virus.  This caused the last two paragraphs to
  read

      ...
      This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which would
      otherwise allow such a shameful Proposal to be voted on.

      This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this
      sentence.

  (omitting the meaningless "(*Was: 822*)" designation).

  It is never relevant in Agora Nomic to ask about the author's intent, 
  and it is even less relevant here, if possible, since the "author" of 
  the latest amendment is the Virus.

  Consistent with this stance, I would ask the Judge to ignore the fact 
  that the proposal was partly Virus-generated, and interpret the words 
  as they are written, as if a Player had written the proposal this way.
  This allows us to try to make sense of the Rule as an organic entity.

  There are two ways to interpret the last paragraph: (1.) it contradicts
  the previous paragraph, and cancels its effect;  or (2.) it refers 
  to rules not covered by the penultimate paragraph (mentioning "other 
  Rules" as it does) and therefore leaves 1003's claimed precedence 
  intact.

  It is an ancient rule of legal construction that if there are two 
  possible ways to interpret a rule, the preferred interpretation is
  the one which is not internally contradictory.

  Under (1.), the Rule contradicts itself and would cause the second-
  last paragraph to be meaningless.  This interpretation would give 
  the rule the same effect no matter what precedence claim that 
  paragraph made.

  Under (2.), the penultimate paragraph explicitly give the rule 
  precedence as before.  The last paragraph may now cause it to defer 
  to some rules where it had precedence by virtue of its number, but 
  not where the previous paragraph claims precedence.  In this 
  interpretation, each paragraph of the Rule has meaning.

  Interpretation (2.) should be preferred, Rule 1003 should be held to
  have precedence as it did before infection, and "Proposal 1614" should
  be considered not properly made, and should not be voted upon.

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

Decision & Reasoning Judge:

Judgment: TRUE

Arguments:
There are four Rules that define when a Proposal is not "properly made"
Let us see whether they apply to `the submission distributed as Proposal
1614' (P1614 for short).

1) Rule 993 states a condition relevant only to Directives. No problem
for P1614.

2) Rule 597 obliges Proposals to be headed by a Title. P1614 has one.

3) Rule 1003 is the Rule upon which both ElJefe and Steve rely when they
argue against or for the legality of P1614.
Its first sentence states:
     "Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player
      into voting against eir conscience are disallowed."

This seems very clear to me: P1614's obvious intent is to coerce
Players and 1003 forbids such Proposals explicitly.
Hence P1614 is *not* a Proposal. (Apparently it is a bit of text send
by Steve via the Promotor to the Agora community to amuse everybody.)

The fact that the second and third paragraph are contradictory, does
not modify my argument, as there is no Rule that obliges the Promotor
to do something with non-Proposals. Take for instance 1036: it states
that a *Proposal* shall be numbered and distributed. But P1614 is not
a Proposal.
Or take 404:
     "As long as a Proposal satisfies all requirements in place at the
      time of its making for the proper making of Proposals, the act
      of making such a Proposal is legal regardless of its content."
No doubt....but again, not applying to P1614.

(Note: and what if P1614 was a Proposal? Well, I haven't looked at it
in detail, but the logical contradiction in 1003 would make a case
for a legitimate UNDECIDED, if not for 783.)

4) The fourth Rule dealing with "proper" is 783.
The relevant part is:
     "Proposals which contain clauses awarding, trading, penalizing,
      or otherwise changing the account of any Nomic Entity's holding
      of Points or any other form of Currency based on the Vote they
      cast on that Proposal are invalid, shall not be deemed to have
      been properly submitted, and shall not be Voted upon."

This is clear too. Even if P1614 was a Proposal, the nature of its
threat
     "All and only those Players who did not [...]
      are hereby deregistered as of the Creation of this Rule."

is in violation of Rule 783. After all, upon deregistration, the Point,
Mark, EV and other Currency holdings of these Players are put to zero,
which seems quite penalizing to this Judge.

Therefore my Judgment is TRUE.

====
Greetings,
TAL

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

Evidence

Rule 1003/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
No Coercive Proposals

      Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player
      into voting against eir conscience are disallowed.  Such a
      proposal is considered not to be "proposed in the proper way".

      This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which would
      otherwise allow such a shameful Proposal to be voted on.
      (*Was: 822*)

      This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this
      sentence.

History:
...
Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jun. 4 1995

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

Rule 106/0 (Semimutable, MI=3)
Adopting Proposals

      All Proposals made in the proper way shall be voted upon.  A
      Proposal shall be adopted if and only if it receives the
      required number of votes and if Quorum is achieved.

History:
Initial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993
Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994
Amended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994
Renumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994
Infected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May. 7 1995

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

Rule 683/3 (Mutable, MI=1)
Legal Votes

      Players may cast of a Vote of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN for any
      Proposal within its prescribed Voting Period.  In order to be
      legally cast, the Vote must be received by the Counting Assessor
      or posted to the Public Forum during the prescribed Voting
      Period.  The Assessor will reveal the Votes cast by each Player
      only after the prescribed Voting Period has ended.

History:
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1473, Mar. 8 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995

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

Rule 957/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
YES=FOR; NO=AGAINST; Anything else=ABSTAIN

      Votes of FOR or YES are to be considered Votes in favor of a
      Proposal.  Votes of AGAINST or NO are to be considered Votes
      opposed to a Proposal.  Other Votes are not to be considered
      as in favor or opposition.
      (*Was: 462*)

----------------------------------------
Proposal 1614 (Steve) AI=1
A Coercive Proposal (!)

Create a Rule with the following text:

      All and only those Players who did not vote FOR the Proposal
      whose adoption resulted in the Creation of this Rule, and who
      did not vote FOR any Proposal to award the Patent Title of the
      Order of Machiavelli to Player JonRock, are hereby deregistered
      as of the Creation of this Rule. They may not reregister for a
      period of ten days.

      This Rule then automatically repeals itself.

####

Comments:

It is my view that the penalty threatened by the proposal is coercive
within the meaning of Rule 1003. The proposal attempts to coerce Players
to vote FOR JonRock's forthcoming attempt to achieve the Machiavelli Title.
This proposal of JonRock's will be distributed in the next Promotor's
Report. With it will also be my own attempt to have this Title awarded to
myself. I choose to attempt to coerce support for JonRock rather than
myself because I want it to be clear than I am not trying to exploit
the Viral infection of Rule 1003 for personal gain. However, the infection
of Rule 1003 presents us with a quite rare case of explicit self-
contradiction in a Rule, and I could not pass up such an opportunity
to explore the consequences of this. I want to stress that JonRock
knows nothing more of this attempt than any of you.

So, to the core question: can Promotor KoJen legally distribute this
Proposal? Can he legally refrain from doing so? Rules 1036 and 109
require him to assign text submitted to him as a proposal a Number,
and to distributer this text within 7 days. Prior to its infection,
Rule 1003 took precedence over these Rules and would have prevented
a Proposal like the above from being distributed. Post-infection,
the situation is not so clear, since Rule 1003 now also explcitly
defers to Rule 1036 and 109. 

It is my hope that Promotor KoJen will distribute this Proposal
so that we may see what ensues. It seems certain, and indeed it is
intended, that the legality of distributing this Proposal will end
up being considered by the courts. I think that will be fun for
everyone.

[distributed Fri, 30 Jun 95 15:21:02 -0400, by KoJen]


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

References, added by Judge:

Rule 404/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Legality of Proposals

      As long as a Proposal satisfies all requirements in place at the
      time of its making for the proper making of Proposals, the act
      of making such a Proposal is legal regardless of its content.
      It is legal to propose a Rule which conflicts with other Rules
      or with itself, which is paradoxical, or which cannot be
      applied.

Rule 597/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
Titles for Proposals

      Every Proposal shall be headed with a Title. This Title shall
      not actually be a part of the Proposal itself and therefore
      shall not become a part of any Rule Enacted or Amended by that
      Proposal. If a Proposal is not headed with a Title, then the
      proposal is not properly submitted, and shall not be Voted upon.

Rule 783/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Illegality of Bonus Clauses

      Proposals which contain clauses awarding, trading, penalizing,
      or otherwise changing the account of any Nomic Entity's holding
      of Points or any other form of Currency based on the Vote they
      cast on that Proposal are invalid, shall not be deemed to have
      been properly submitted, and shall not be Voted upon.
      (*Was: 326*)

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.

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.

Rule 1036/2 (Mutable, MI=1)
Making and Distributing Proposals

      Let there be an Officer called the Promotor.
      The Promotor shall receive a weekly salary of 3 Points.
      A Proposal by a Player shall be made by submitting it to the
      Promotor. As soon as possible after receiving the Proposal, the
      Promotor shall assign the Proposal a Number.
      Within seven (7) days of the receipt of the Proposal, and not
      later than any subsequently received Proposal, the Promotor
      shall distribute the numbered Proposal to all Players.

      At the same time e shall distribute any text not part of the
      proposal which is required to be submitted with it, but eir
      failure to do so shall not deprive the act of distributing the
      Proposal of the effects which it would otherwise have.


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

Andre