>From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com  Wed Sep 13 02:48:39 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 CAA01327 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Wed, 13 Sep 1995 02:48:36 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id AAA26609 for nomic-official-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 1995 00:45:13 -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 AAA26601 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Wed, 13 Sep 1995 00:45:09 -0700
Message-Id: <199509130745.AAA26601@desiree.teleport.com>
Received: by wing1.wing.rug.nl
	(1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA00806; Wed, 13 Sep 1995 09:43:13 +0200
>From: Andre Engels <csg419@wing.rug.nl>
Subject: OFF: CFJ 807: Judgement
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 9:43:13 METDST
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

==========================================================================
			JUDGEMENT CFJ 807

Statement:

The Assessor may choose whether Proposal 1694 passes or fails, as long as
the Assessor is not Steve.

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

Judge:		Swann (resigned)
		favor
Judgement:	TRUE

Eligible:	Andre, Dave Bowen, favor, Ian, Kelly, KoJen, Michael,
		Oerjan, Vanyel, Vlad, Xanadu, Zefram, elJefe

Not Eligible:
Caller:		Steve
Barred:		Chuck, SugarWater
On Hold:	Brian, Garth, JonRock
Declined:	Swann

Effects:	Swann looses 2 Points for declining, one of which goes
		to Andre.

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

History:
  Called by Steve, Tue, 5 Sep, 13:25 +1000
  Assigned to Swann, date unknown
  Declined by Swann, Sun, 10 Sep 1995, 23:40 -0400
  Assigned to favor, Mon, 11 Sep 1995, 10:13 METDST
  Judged TRUE by favor, Mon 11 Sep 1995, 16:40 EDT

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

Reasons and Arguments:

The Judgement of CFJ 806 establishes that Steve, as Assessor, cannot
choose whether Proposal 1694 passes or fails as required by Rule
955, because for Steve to do so would violate Rule 452. However, Rule
452 restricts only the use of "knowledge...which has come into eir
possession because [a Player] is the Assessor". The only Player for whom
it is true that knowledge that Proposal 1694 is tied has come into
eir possession because e is the Assessor is Steve. All other Players
have come into possession of this knowledge because Steve has published
an Assessor's Report in the Public Forum. Hence the only Player for
whom there is a conflict between Rules 955 and 452 is Steve. If a
Player other than Steve were the Assessor, there would be no conflict 
for that Player between the requirements of Rule 955 and 452 in the
case of Proposal 1694. Such a Player would be permitted to choose
whether Proposal 1694 passes or fails, provided that Rule 955 does
not require that the Player who, as Assessor, chooses whether a tied
Proposal passes or fails, is the same Player who was Assessor at the
conclusion of the Voting Period of the Proposal in question. Rule 955
makes no such requirement.  So a Player, other than Steve, who is the
Assessor is permitted to choose whether Proposal 1694 passes or fails.

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

Decision & Argument Judge:

Judgement: TRUE

Arguments:

  There are a number of ways to interpret the Statement in
  this Call for Judgement.  In the most literal reading, the
  Statement says "If Steve is not the Assessor, then...".
  But since of course Steve *is* the Assessor (and, more
  to the point, was when this CFJ was called), the Statement
  has the form "If <false>, then...", and of course all
  such statements are true, if interpreted in the most
  straightforward Boolean manner.  So, TRUE.

  On the other hand, it would be silly to CFJ on a trivially
  true statement, and internal evidence in the arguments
  suggests that we interpret this as a counterfactual
  conditional, "if it were the case that Steve weren't
  the Assessor, then...".  If we interpret this to mean
  "there is no possible world in which Steve is not
  Assessor, but not...", then we'd get FALSE (since,
  for instance, it might be the case that Steve is not
  the Assessor, but the Rules don't allow the Assessor
  to choose whether 1694 passes or fails, because the
  alternate Agora didn't have this rather odd Assessor-
  choice rule).  But hardly anyone thinks that counter-
  factual conditionals ought to be interpreted this way;
  a more respectable interpretation of this is something
  like "in the most nearby possible worlds in which Steve
  is not the Assessor, it is the case that...".  Fortunately,
  the statement comes out TRUE under this interpretation, at
  least under a reasonably intuitive metric on possible
  worlds, for exactly the reasons that Steve gives; if
  everything were the same except that Steve were not
  Assessor, whoever *was* Assessor would be allowed by
  955, and not forbidden by 452, to choose whether 1694
  passes or fails.  So, TRUE.

  Note that I will be silent here on the issue of whether or
  not 452 actually prevents Steve, as Assessor, from choosing
  whether 1694 passes or fails.  Cogent cases could be made
  either way: it might be argued that the choosing under
  955 does not count as "influencing the result of the vote"
  for the purposes of 452 (since the vote will still have
  been a tie, however Steve were to choose); on the other hand,
  by Steve's choosing, he can certainly determine whether
  the proposal passes or fails, and that passing or failing
  is, albeit indirectly, a result of the vote (i.e. a different
  pattern of votes might have led to a different passing/failing).
  It might also be argued that the "because" in 452 does not
  hold, and so 452 does not forbid Steve from choosing, because
  he would have had the information anyway, even were he not
  assessor (this depends on your theory of "because").  Glad
  I don't have to decide that one!  *8)  I believe 806 on
  the subject has been appealed...

  | favor |


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

Evidence:

1. Judgement of CFJ 806.
2. Rule 452.
3. Rule 955.

-----1. Judgement of CFJ 806.

Andre Engels writes:
>
>==========================================================================
>			ASSIGNMENT CFJ 806
>
>The Assessor may not choose whether Proposal 1694 passes or fails.
>==========================================================================
>
>Judge:		Kelly
>Judgement:	TRUE
>Caller:		Steve
>
>==========================================================================
>
>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
>==========================================================================

-----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

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