From  Sun Jul 23 16:20:32 1995
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA00415 for <>; Sun, 23 Jul 1995 16:06:57 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.6.10/8.6.9) id JAA02102 for nomic-official-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jul 1995 09:58:12 -0700
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA02095 for <>; Sun, 23 Jul 1995 09:58:09 -0700
Received: by;
          id LAA17124; 8.6.9W/42; Sun, 23 Jul 1995 11:58:09 -0500
X-NUPop-Charset: English
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 95 11:55:00 CDT  
From: "Charles E. Carroll" <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: OFF: CFJ 789: Final Judgement
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Final Judgement of CFJ 789, now including Vanyel's Judgement

Vanyel receives 3 Points for Judgement.


CFJ 789

Caller: Kelly

Statement: Chuck violated Rule 1454, by selecting Rule 106 to be 
  infected by the Virus in a manner other than that specified
  in the Rules. 

Barred: Chuck

Requested Injunction: It is requested that the Judge enjoin Chuck to 
  retract his illegal move.

Judge: Andre
  Judgement: TRUE
  Injunction: I request Chuck to retract eir illegal move, that is, to
    choose, but now in the right way, a Virus Number for the Nomic Week
    in which this erroneous Virus Report was issued.

pro-Speaker: KoJen
  Judgement: FALSE
pro-COTC: Vanyel
  Judgement: FALSE
Justiciar: Steve
  Judgement: FALSE

Final Judgement: FALSE
  Injunction: none

Effects reported by COTC (* indicates new to this report)
  Andre receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement
  Steve receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement
  KoJen receives 3 Points for Judgement
  Andre loses 5 Points for having his Judgement overturned
 *Vanyel receives 3 Points for Judgement




  Called by Kelly, July 10 1995, 10:17 EST5
  Assigned to Andre, July 11 1995, 10:25 UTC
  Judged TRUE by Andre, July 14 1995, 11:12 METDST
  Appealed by Chuck, timestamp incorrect
  Appealed by Steve, July 17 1995, 17:16 +1000 (EST)
  Appealed by Vanyel, July 17 1995, 03:14 -0500 (CDT)
  Assigned to Kelly as Speaker, July 17 1995, 09:15 UTC
  Assigned to Andre as CotC, July 17 1995, 09:15 UTC
  Assigned to Steve as Justiciar, July 17 1995, 09:15 UTC
  Judged FALSE by Steve, July 18 1995, 12:39 +1000 (EST)
  Assigned to KoJen as pro-Speaker, July 18 1995, 00:24 EST5
  Assigned to Vanyel as pro-CotC, July 19 1995, 08:25 METDST
  Judged FALSE by KoJen Fri, 21 Jul 95 16:23:39 -0400
  Final Judgement of FALSE published Sat, 22 Jul 95 16:03:26 CDT
  Judged FALSE by Vanyel Sun, 23 Jul 1995 02:08:53 -0500 (CDT)


Arguments of Caller (Kelly):

Rule 1454 requires the Rulekeepor to select a _random_ integer in the 
range [M,N], where M and N are, respecctively, the number of the
lowest and highest numbered Rules at the beginning of that week.
Rule 1079 requires that the any "random" selection be made such that 
the selection be made such that each possible choice has equal 
probability of being selected. 

Chuck's procedure for selecting an integer in the required range 
clearly does not result in a randomly-selected integer as defined by 
the Rules; the number of possible outcomes of the selection mandated
by 1479 is nearly 1400, and, as TAL has postulated, the number of 
ingredients in a random foodstuff more closely approximates a Poisson
distribution, rather than the uniform distribution called for by 1079.
Hence, this selection procedure has a much greater probability of
selecting the integers at the lower end of the distribution than those 
at the higher end, and is therefore not a "random" selection as 
defined by the Rules. 

KoJen's use of this selection method does not violate 1079 because 
KoJen employed an arbitrary mapping between the generated integer and 
the set of objects to select from.  The inclusion of such an arbitrary
mapping introduces a randomicity which is not present in the case 
under consideration.  A finding of TRUE on this CFJ should in no way 
invalidate the methodology employed by KoJen in selecting a new 

Arguments of Judge (Andre):

In the case of CFJ 789 I judge TRUE. 

I think we all agree that Chuck's method was not random in the sense of the 
Rules. Eir method gave a far higher chance to yield one of the lower integers
in the given range, thus the choice was not random as described in Rule 1079. 
However, did e choose a Virus Number, or was e posting a completely bogus 
report? In my opinion by clearly specifying it as such he HAD selected a
Virus Number, and done so in an incorrect way. I do agree there could be a 
discussion at this point, however. 


Arguments of Justiciar (Steve):

There is a broad consensus that Chuck did not use a random process
in his attempt to select a Virus Number (see the evidence adduced
with the original CFJ). However, I part company from Judge Andre
when he concludes from this that Chuck violated Rule 1454. For the
wording of Rule 1454 is quite clear: nothing is a Virus Number that
is not randomly selected. Since Chuck did not select a random number,
he did not select a Virus Number. Hence he did not select Rule 106
to be infected, despite his claim to the contrary. The correct
conclusion to draw, therefore, is that Chuck posted an erroneous or
misleading Report. However, nothing in Rule 1454 prohibits Chuck
from doing this. So the Statement is FALSE.


Arguments of pro-Speaker (KoJen)

Clearly Chuck did not use a process which could yield any of the outcomes with
equal probability, as required by Rule 1079. So he has not yet chosen any Rule
to be infected, and is not in violation for infecting an incorrect Rule.

(As an aside, he *is* actually in violation of Rule 1454 for another reason: By
failing to choose *any* Rule to be infected, he is in violation of Rule 1454 and
the "As Soon As Possible" Rule. But that is not the subject of this CFJ.)


Arguments of pro-COTC (Vanyel)

In Chuck's first message alleging to be the Virus Report, he said that
Rule 106 was infected.  However, as he did not select a random number in
the correct range, there was no Virus Number then, and no Rule was
infected.  There is no rule against counting the number of ingredients
on a soup can, diddling with the number and posting the whole mess to
nomic-business.  And, there is no rule against posting that a rule was
infected... thus, Chuck didn't violate rule 1454.


Evidence provided by Caller (Kelly):

I.   Rule 1079/0 
II.  Rule 1454/0 
III. Chuck's Report of Virus Activity 
Rule 1079/0 (Mutable, MI=1) 
Definition of "Random" 
      All occurrences of the word "random" or forms of it shall be 
      taken to mean "any one of the choices with equally distributed 
      possibility for each choice". 

Rule 1454/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
The Virus
      There is a Nomic Entity called the Virus which has the effect 
      of altering the texts of Rules, in the manner and under the
      conditions set out below. This process is known as "infection". 
      The effect of the Virus on a Rule, when it has an effect, is 
      that of a non-Proposed Amendment to that Rule. Thus, the Virus 
      can only be effective inasmuch as it satisfies the Rules for 
      the effectiveness of non-Proposed Rule Changes. 
      The selection of the Rule to be infected by the Virus occurs as 
      follows: as soon as possible after the beginning of each Nomic 
      Week, the Rulekeepor shall select a random integer in the range 
      [M,N], where M and N are, respectively, the numbers of the 
      lowest and highest numbered Rules at the beginning of that 
      week. Call a number selected in this way a Virus Number.  If 
      the Virus Number selected is the number of a Rule, then that
      Rule is infected as described below, and no further Virus 
      Numbers are selected in that week. If the Virus Number is not 
      the number of a Rule, then a new Virus Number is selected as 
      above, unless five such Virus Numbers (which are not the
      numbers of a Rule) have already been selected in that week. In 
      that case, the Virus is ineffective and no Rule is infected in 
      that week.
      The Rulekeepor shall publish the results of the selection 
      process in the Public Forum within 24 hours of the completion 
      of that process. If a Rule has been infected, e shall announce 
      the number of that Rule. If no Rule has been infected, then e 
      shall that no Rule has been infected. 
      An infected Rule is amended in the following way, given that 
      other Rules permit it: if the Rule does not already contain the 
      sentence "This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not 
      contain this sentence.", then that sentence is appended to the 
      Rule. If the Rule already contains the sentence, then the 
      sentence is deleted from the Rule.
      There is one exception to the above: if this Rule is the 
      infected Rule, then this Rule automatically Repeals itself. 

Created by Proposal 1573, Apr. 28 1995
X-NUPop-Charset: English 
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 95 08:42:44 CST 
Precedence: bulk 
From: "Charles E. Carroll" <> 
Subject: OFF: Virus Report 
In the past I have used a pseudo-random number generator to
select the virus numbers.  Today I have decided to use a different 
For each number to be selected, I will select an item from my
kitchen.  I will count the number of ingredients, take that 
number modulo 1382, and add 101.  This gives a number in 
the range 101-1482 inclusive.
The first item is Nile Spice Black Bean Soup.  It has 5 ingredients. 
106 is a Rule, but since it has MI=3, it is not amended. 
(I have added a line to the history noting the infection, however.) 
Rule 106 now reads: 
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. 
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 
Infected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, Jul. 10 1995 


End of CFJ 789