From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com  Thu Oct  5 09:27:04 1995
Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA00871 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 09:27:01 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id GAA08699 for nomic-official-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 06:02:43 -0700
Received: from wing1.wing.rug.nl (wing1.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.1]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id GAA08672 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 06:02:34 -0700
Message-Id: <199510051302.GAA08672@desiree.teleport.com>
Received: by wing1.wing.rug.nl
	(1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA04063; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 14:01:37 +0100
From: Andre Engels <csg419@wing.rug.nl>
Subject: OFF: CFJ806: 4th assignment upon appeal...
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 95 14:01:36 MET
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

The number of defaults on this CFJ is record-breaking, I guess. We are at
7 now...

==========================================================================
		ASSIGNMENT UPON APPEAL CFJ 806

The Assessor may not choose whether Proposal 1694 passes or fails.
==========================================================================

Judge:		Kelly
Judgement:	TRUE

Speaker:	Steve
pro-Speaker:	Oerjan
Judgement:	TRUE
CotC:		Andre
pro-CotC:	Ian
2nd pro-CotC:	Vanyel
3rd pro-CotC:	elJefe
Judgement:	
Justiciar:	Chuck
pro-Justiciar:	Vlad
2nd pro-Just.:	SugarWater
3rd pro-Just.:	KoJen
Judgement:

Final Judgement:

Caller:		Steve

Barred:		none

Eligible:	Dave Bowen, elJefe, favor, KoJen, Michael, 
		Swann, Zefram, wutold

Not Eligible:	Steve (Caller)
		Garth, Xanadu (On Hold)
		Andre, Chuck, Ian, Vlad, Vanyel, Sugarwater (defaulted)
		Kelly (original Judge)
		Oerjan (already judged appeal)

Effects of this CFJ:
		Kelly gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement.
		Steve gains 3 Blots for defaulting on appelate Judgement.
		Andre gains 3 Blots for defaulting on appelate Judgement.
		Chuck gains 3 Blots for defaulting on appelate Judgement.
		Oerjan gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement.
		Ian gains 3 Blots for defaulting on appelate Judgement.
		Vlad gains 3 Blots for defaulting on appelate Judgement.
		Vanyel gains 3 Blots for defaulting on appelate Judgement.
		SugarWater gains 3 Blots for defaulting on appelate Judgement.

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

History:
  Called by Steve, Fri, 1 Sep 14:05 +1000 (EST)
  Assigned to Kelly, Fri, 1 Sep (time unknown)
  Judged TRUE by Kelly, Fri, 1 Sep 08:21 EST5
  Appealed by Chuck, Mon, 4 Sep 17:37 -0500
  Appealed by Andre, Wed, 6 Sep 10:37 METDST
  Appealed by Zefram, Wed, 6 Sep 10:42 +0100 (BST)
  Assigned to Steve as Speaker, date unknown
  Assigned to Andre as CotC, date unknown
  Assigned to Chuck as Justiciar, date unknown
  Defaulted by Steve, Andre and Chuck
  Assigned to Oerjan as pro-Speaker, 15 Sep, time unknown
  Assigned to Ian as pro-CotC, 15 Sep, time unknown
  Assigned to Vlad as pro-Justiciar, 15 Sep, time unknown
  Judged TRUE by Oerjan, Mon, 18 Sep 23:06 +0200 (METDST)
  Defaulted by Ian and Vlad
  Assigned to Vanyel as pro-CotC, 28 Sep, 11:38 MET
  Assigned to SugarWater as pro-Justiciar, 28 Sep, 11:38 MET
  Defaulted by Vanyel and SugarWater
  Assigned to elJefe as pro-CotC, 5 Oct, as of this message  
  Assigned to KoJen as pro-Justiciar, 5 Oct, as of this message

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

Reasons and Arguments:

I claim the Statement follows from the requirements of Rule 452, which
take precedence over those of Rule 955. 

The facts of the case are:

1. The vote on Proposal 1694 is tied 9-9, and the Proposal has an
Adoption Index of 1. So the Voting Index for Proposal 1694 exactly
equals the Adoption Index of the Proposal.

2. Rule 955 states:

      If the Voting Index exactly equals the Adoption Index, then the
      Assessor shall choose whether the Proposal passes or fails.

3. Rule 452 states:

      The Assessor may not use knowledge of the current status of the
      vote on a Proposal which has come into eir possession because e
      is the Assessor, in an attempt to influence the result of the
      vote on that Proposal.

The truth of the Statement rest on a simple claim: that if, As Assessor,
I were to choose whether Proposal 1694 passes or fails, as required
by Rule 955, I would be using "knowledge of the current status of the
vote on a Proposal which has come into [my] possession because [I am]
the Assessor, in attempt to influence the result of the vote on that
Proposal." This is forbidden by Rule 452, and this Rule takes precedence
over Rule 955. So I may not choose whether Proposal 1694 passes or fails.

It makes no difference that I have published the Assessor's Report on
Proposal 1694 in the Public Forum, and hence that I would have access
to the information that the Proposal is tied even were I not the
Assessor. For it remains true that, as a matter of fact, my actual 
knowledge of the tie was acquired because I am the Assessor, and not
by other means.

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

Decision & Arguments Judge:


I accept assignment as Judge of CFJ 806, and find this CFJ TRUE.

Steve's argument is quite clear, and effectively undeniable.  Clearly,
choosing whether a Proposal passes or fails is an attempt to influence
its result, and since Steve would be called upon to make this choice
because of his knowledge of the status of the Vote on Pr.1694, doing
so would violate R.452.  R.452 clearly takes precedence over R.955, as
neither Rule contains a precedence clause and the default numerical
method therefore applies.

If Steve had, say, escrowed his Choices before collecting any Votes,
so that his choice was not made with any knowledge of the status of
the Vote, then it would be legal (although in most cases eir Choice
would not be used).

I make no opinion on the matter of whether Pr.1694 passes, or whether
another Assessor might be allowed to break the tie if Steve were to
resign.

Respectfully submitted this 1st day of September, 1995,

Kelly Martin, Judge


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

Reasoning & Arguments Justices:


I judge this TRUE.

It is clear that no Assessor's decision on whether to pass or fail 1694
would have been done at all had the Proposal not been tied. (As evidenced
by the fact that the Assessor made no such determination on other,
non-tied Proposals.) Thus if the Assessor fails not to make such a
decision on 1694 he has used his knowledge of the status of the Vote. 

Greetings,
Oerjan.

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

Evidence:

1. Excerpt from Assessor's Report: 1685-1704, Sep 01, 1995.
2. Rule 452
3. Rule 955
4. Rule 1030

-----1. Excerpt from Assessor's Report: 1685-1704, Sep 01, 1995

1694  1  Kelly     Revitalize Marks (Claim of Error Fee)     TIES    9-9  (2)

-----2. Rule 452

Rule 452/4 (Mutable, MI=1)
No Electioneering by the Assessor

      The Assessor may not use knowledge of the current status of the
      vote on a Proposal which has come into eir possession because e
      is the Assessor, in an attempt to influence the result of the
      vote on that Proposal.

      If a Call for Judgment alleging a violation of this rule is
      found to be TRUE, the Assessor violating this rule shall gain
      three (3) Blots. Reporting this gain to the Tabulator is the
      responsibility of the Player who called the CFJ.

History:
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1446, Feb. 21 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1534, Apr. 4 1995
Amended(4) by Proposal 1584, May 15 1995

-----3. Rule 955

Rule 955/2 (Mutable, MI=1)
Votes Required to Adopt a Proposal

      When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the Votes which
      have been legally cast shall be counted by the Assessor.  The
      Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting Index, as follows: the
      Proposal received no Votes opposed, and at least one Vote in
      favor, the Voting Index shall be Unanimity; if there are no
      Votes in favor, the Voting Index shall be zero; in all other
      cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of Votes in favor
      divided by the number of Votes opposed.

      If the Voting Index is greater than the Adoption Index for the
      given Proposal, then that Proposal shall pass.  If the Voting
      Index exactly equals the Adoption Index, then the Assessor shall
      choose whether the Proposal passes or fails.  If the Voting
      Index is less than the Adoption Index, the Proposal shall fail.

History:
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994
Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995

-----4. Rule 1030

Rule 1030/2 (Mutable, MI=1)
Precedence Between Rules with Equal MI's

      If two or more Rules with the same Mutability Indices conflict
      with one another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes
      precedence.  If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly
      says of itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule)
      or takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then
      such provisions shall supercede the numerical method for
      determining precedence.  If two or more Rules claim to take
      precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the
      numerical method again governs.

History:
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1527, Mar. 24 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995

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


Steve Gardner                     |  "Justice? You get justice in the next
Dept. of Philosophy, Monash Uni.  |   world, in this world you get the law."
gardner@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au   |          --  William Gaddis --