>From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com  Thu Aug  3 13:16:48 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 NAA08198 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Thu, 3 Aug 1995 13:13:45 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id JAA04404 for nomic-official-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 1995 09:29:59 -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 JAA04383 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Thu, 3 Aug 1995 09:29:54 -0700
Received: from [144.92.180.198] by audumla.students.wisc.edu;
          id LAA25923; 8.6.9W/42; Thu, 3 Aug 1995 11:28:45 -0500
X-NUPop-Charset: English
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 95 11:27:17 CDT  
>From: "Charles E. Carroll"  <ccarroll@students.wisc.edu>
Message-Id: <41248.ccarroll@students.wisc.edu>
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Subject: OFF: CFJ 798: Judgement
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

Judgement of CFJ 798

KoJen receives 5 points for speedy Judgement.

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

CFJ 798

Caller: Chuck

Statement: SugarWater's second Injunction on CFJ 795, namely
  "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,"
  was illegal.

Barred: SugarWater
Requested Injunction: none

Judge: KoJen
  Judgement: TRUE
  Injunction: SugarWater shall make a formal apology using these
    prescribed words: study, understand, restraint, error, headstrong,
    care, violate, assimilate, comprehend, conservative


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

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

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

History:
  Called by Chuck Mon, 31 Jul 95 12:08:03 CDT
  Assigned to KoJen Mon, 31 Jul 95 12:39:22 CDT
  Judged TRUE by KoJen Thu, 3 Aug 95 12:06:19 -0400
  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 665 or 789.  It might seem to
be of the type allowed by Rule 908, but Rule 908 only applies in the
case of "a Call for Judgement [which] 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..."  CFJ 795 contains
no such allegation; it merely alleges that the dissolution of Reform
was in violation of the Rules.  It does not allege that any specific
Player acted or failed to act 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 (KoJen):

Rule 908 applies when a Player is found to have violated a Rule. This was not
the finding of CFJ 795. This CFJ found that the dissolution of Reform was
illegal. In other words, it did not occur. The dissolution (or attempted
dissolution) did not occur as a result of the Vizier's actions. The Vizier
simply reports the dissolution (Rule 1397). Since no other Rule exists to
permit a Judge to issue an injunction such as what SugarWater attempted, it is
clear that SugarWater's injunction was illegal.

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

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

[...]


======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 798

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