>From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com  Thu Aug  3 04:01:48 1995
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 DAA05917 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Thu, 3 Aug 1995 03:54:21 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id AAA22258 for nomic-official-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 1995 00:53:45 -0700
Received: from audumla.students.wisc.edu (students.wisc.edu [144.92.104.66]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id AAA22252 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Thu, 3 Aug 1995 00:53:42 -0700
Received: from [144.92.180.44] by audumla.students.wisc.edu;
          id CAA11938; 8.6.9W/42; Thu, 3 Aug 1995 02:52:21 -0500
X-NUPop-Charset: English
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 95 02:50:56 CDT  
>From: "Charles E. Carroll"  <ccarroll@students.wisc.edu>
Message-Id: <10265.ccarroll@students.wisc.edu>
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Subject: OFF: CFJ 797: Judgement
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

Judgement of CFJ 797

Vlad receives 5 points for speedy Judgement.

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

CFJ 797

Caller: Chuck

Statement: SugarWater's first Injunction on CFJ 795, namely
  "As per Rule 665/0, I issue the following injunction:
   The Move to dissolve Reform Group is retracted.  Reform 
   Group still exists.  The Game State will be adjusted appropriately,"
   was illegal.

Barred: SugarWater
Requested Injunction: none

Judge: Vlad
  Judgement: FALSE
  Injunction: none

Effects reported by COTC (* indicates new for this report):
 *Vlad receives 5 points for speedy Judgement

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

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

History:
  Called by Chuck Mon, 31 Jul 95 12:06:27 CDT
  Assigned to Vlad Mon, 31 Jul 95 12:37:46 CDT
  Judged FALSE by Vlad Wed, 2 Aug 1995 20:34:52 -0500 (CDT)
  Judgement published {as of this message}

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

Arguments of Caller (Chuck):

Rule 663 states "A Judgement may not be accompanied by an Injunction
unless it is specifically permitted elsewhere in the Rules."  This
Injunction is not permitted elsewhere in the Rules.  It clearly is
not of the types permitted by Rule 789 or 908.  It might seem to be
of the type permitted by Rule 665, but Rule 665 requires for such
an Injunction to be issued, "The adjustments to the game state must
have been unambiguously specified within the CFJ..."  Nowhere in
the CFJ did favor (the caller) specify that the dissolution of
Reform should be undone; thus the Injunction is in violation of
the Rules.

It might be argued that SugarWater issued not two Injunctions with
CFJ 795, as he seemed to do, but only one.  I argue that this is not
the case, as in the message in which he sent his Judgement to the
COTC, they are clearly labelled as "Injunctions."

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

Arguments of Judge (Vlad):

Oh what a tangled web we weave! With so much flak flying
around what ought to be a simple issue, Judging even one
small part is difficult. However, this issue is
relatively easy. Rule 665 is the most important:

> 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.

SugarWater points out that this Rule seems to distinguish
between "The Move" and "any resulting adjustments to the
game state". The only question is, can a Move be retracted
*without* adjustments to the game state? Rule 665 implies
yes, by using the word "any". This would be the case, for
instance, if various Officers did not record Reform as having
dissolved;there would be nothing to undo. But kelly did
publish score reports which are in error given the non-
dissolution of reform. Logically, this is silly, but I
can find no resonn why it would be illegal. Therefore, I
Judge FALSE. Unofficially, I point out that this means
that kelly does not have to correct her score reports
(at least, not due to CFJ 795).

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

Evidence provided by Caller (Chuck):

1. Rule 663
2. Rule 665
3. Rule 789
4. Rule 908
5. Excerpts of CFJ 795
6. Excerpts of SugarWater's Judgement message

{full texts of 5 and 6 can be provided upon request}

======1. Rule 663

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

======2. Rule 665

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.

======3. Rule 789

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

======4. Rule 908

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.

======5. Excerpts of CFJ 795

CFJ 795

Caller: favor

Statement: The dissolution of the Reform Group violated the Rules of
  Agora Nomic.

Barred: TAL, Steve, elJefe
Requested Injunction: none

Judge: SugarWater
  Judgement: TRUE
  Injunctions: As per Rule 665/0, I issue the following injunction:

      The Move to dissolve Reform Group is retracted.  Reform 
    Group still exists.  The Game State will be adjusted appropriately.

     The Ninny in this situation is the Vizier of Reform Group, as e 
    executed the illegal dissolution.  Under the authority of Rule 908/3, i
    prescribe the following words to be used in the Formal Apology:

    Philharmonic   boustrophedonic   supersonic   gin  tonic  chronic

[...]

Arguments of Caller (favor):

Rule 721 states that all Members of a Group must obey the
Ordinances of that Group, so long as the Ordinances do not
conflict with the Rules.  Therefore if an action by any
Members of a Group does not obey the Ordinances (modulo
conflicts with the Rules), that action violates the Rules.

At the time the Reform Group was dissolved (or, for any
Platonists listening, when dissolution-looking messages
were posted to the Public Forum), Ordinance 0 of the
Reform Group Ordinances stated that the Purpose of the
Group was to foster progressive change and dynamic
growth within the Game of Agora Nomic.  While such an
abstract statement of principle cannot be held to
govern every small particular action of the Members
of the Group, the fact that the statement is included
in the Ordinances, in the lowest-numbered spot, traditionally
reserved for the highest-precedence and most-encompassing
item, implies that it must have *some* impact on the
Members of the Group, and must constrain at least *some*
of their potential activities.  There must, that is, be
*some* action on the part of Members that would count
as not obeying that Ordinance.

The dissolution (or attempted dissolution) of the Group,
coming as it did almost immediately after a change to the
Ordinances which provided for the Group Treasury to be
divided among the members upon the dissolution of the
Group, constituted a breach of trust with those non-Member
Players who had invested in Reform Group coins.  More
generally, it seriously eroded the confidence of the
Agora public in Group currencies, to the point that
the elimination of such currencies has been suggested.
And even more broadly, it cast a pall on general mechanisms
of trust within Agora Nomic.  None of these effects can
possibly be interpreted as fostering progressive change
and dynamic growth within the Game; in fact, it is obvious
that they have entirely the opposite effect, chilling
any mechanisms of progress and growth that require trust,
whether trust in Group currencies or in any other
cooperative effort of Players.

If any action could count as not obeying Ordinance 0 of
the Reform Group Ordinances, this action must be deemed
to so count as well.  Therefore this action does not
obey that Ordinance, and therefore it violates the Rules
of Agora Nomic.  Naughty, naughty!

[...]

======6. Excerpts of SugarWater's Judgement message

[...]

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 00:38:18 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Adrian Brown <gorgonne@becker.u.washington.edu>
X-Sender: gorgonne@becker1.u.washington.edu
To: ccarroll@students.wisc.edu
Subject: Judgement of cfj 795

[...]

Injunctions. . .


 As per Rule 665/0, I issue the following injunction:

  The Move to dissolve Reform Group is retracted.  Reform 
Group still exists.  The Game State will be adjusted appropriately.

 The Ninny in this situation is the Vizier of Reform Group, as e 
executed the illegal dissolution.  Under the authority of Rule 908/3, i 
prescribe the following words to be used in the Formal Apology:

Philharmonic   boustrophedonic   supersonic   gin  tonic  chronic

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

End of CFJ 797

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