>From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com  Wed Nov 15 08:53:44 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 IAA03235 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 08:53:40 -0600
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id GAA06587 for nomic-official-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 06:48:14 -0800
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 GAA06444 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 06:47:43 -0800
Message-Id: <199511151447.GAA06444@desiree.teleport.com>
Received: by wing1.wing.rug.nl
	(1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA00243; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 15:46:01 +0100
>From: Andre Engels <csg419@wing.rug.nl>
Subject: OFF: CFJ 820 Final Judgement: TRUE
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 95 15:46:00 MET
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

Wow! That was close! Two Judgements in the last hour when it was possible!

======================================================================
		 	ASSIGNMENT CFJ 820

Rule 1533 should be interpreted to forbid any Group of Players from
forming an Organization that does not belong to a Class defined in the
Rules.
====================================================================
Judge:		Dave Bowen
Judgement:	FALSE
Speaker:	Michael
Judgement:	TRUE
CotC:		Andre
Judgement:	TRUE
Justiciar:	Steve (must delegate eir duties)
pro-Justiciar:	Morendil
Judgement:	TRUE
Final Judgement:TRUE

Eligible:	Andre, Chuck, Coco, Dave Bowen, Erick, favor, KoJen, 
		Michael, Morendil, Oerjan, SugarWater, Vanyel, Vlad, 
		Zefram

Not Eligible:	
Caller:		Swann
Barred:		Kelly, elJefe, Steve
On Hold:
	
Effects:	Dave Bowen gains 3 Points for timely Judgement
		Morendil gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement
		Michael gains 3 Points for timely Judgement
		Andre gains 3 Points for timely Judgement
		Dave Bowen looses 3 Points for being overturned

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

History:
  Called by Swann, 31 Oct 1995, 01:58 -0500
  Assigned to Dave B., 31 Oct 1995, 15:00 MET
  Judged FALSE by Dave B., 6 Nov 1995, 12:42 -0600
  Appealed by Swann, 7 Nov 1995, 15:19 MET
  Appealed by Morendil, 8 Nov 1995, time unknown
  Appealed by Michael, 8 Nov 1995, 10:05 GMT
  Assigned to Michael as Speaker, 8 Nov 1995, 12:11 MET
  Assigned to Andre as CotC, 8 Nov 1995, 12:11 MET
  Assigned to Steve as Justiciar, 8 Nov 1995, 12:11 MET
  Delegated to Morendil as pro-Justiciar, 8 Nov 1995, 23:25 +1100 (EST)
  Judged TRUE by Morendil, 9 Nov 1995, 01:05 +0001
  Judged TRUE by Michael, 15 Nov 1995, 10:22 GMT
  Judged TRUE by Andre, 15 Nov 1995, 11:42 MET

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

Requested Injunction:

Rule 1533 shall be annotated with the interpretation given in this
CFJ.

====================================================================
Argument:

Rule 1533 defines the general procedure for creating an Organization,
to illuminate the Statement in this CFJ, I will process the Rule as it
will apply to a hypothetical  Organization of an undefined Class.

First off, 1533 Claims precedence over such an Entity, because, to
quote.

     "This Rule defers when other Rules specifically claim precedence
      over its requirements. Otherwise, these requirements take
      precedence."

An undefined Class of Organization has, by definition, no Rule
specifically claiming such precedence, so 1533 does by dint of this
clause.

To from such an Undefined Organization then:

     "A set of Players, known as the Foundors, sends a message to the
      Notary containing the following information:

         i) The Class of the created Organization.
        ii) The Unique Name of the particular Organization being
            created.
       iii) The inital Compact for the proposed Orginization.
        iv) Any information required by Rules governing that specific
            Class of Organization."

So far, so good...

Then we start to have problems:

     "The Organization is created and is in force once the Notary
      receives the above information from all required Foundors."

Who are "all required Foundors" for a non-existent Class?  Rule 1533
does not define this term, and nowhere else does the Ruleset define it
in the case of an undefined Organization.  At best this clause would
render the Organization's existence indeterminate (and this CFJ
UNDECIDABLE) because there is no way to determine which Foundors are
the "required" ones.

However, Rule 1533 does elaborate on where the definition shall come
from:

     "The set of required Foundors is specified within the Rules
      defining the particular Class of Organization, but they must be
      from within the Jurisdiction of the new Organization's Compact."

Therefore the set of required Founders must be obtained from the Rules
that define a Class of Organization.  This implies that there can be
no "required Foundors" for our hypothetical Organization, because there
are no Rules defining its Class.  IMO this, in itself, is enough to
decide the Statement TRUE--

But, additionally, 1533 also restricts the Foundors to be from within
the Jurisdiction of the Organization's Compact.

Can our hypothetical Organization have a Jurisdiction at all?

>From 1530:

     "A Compact can only have Jurisdiction over Players permitted to
      it by the Rules governing its Class of Organization."

The word "only" here seems quite explicit to me.  It is clear that
1530 forbids an Organization Jurisdiction over Players unless a Rule
explicitly allows its Class to claim such Jurisdiction.  I've heard
claim that somehow 116 override this interpretation, but lets look at
116:

     "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a Rule is permitted
      and unregulated..."

The Jurisdiction of our hypothetical Organization obviously falls into
the class of things that are "regulated," therefore 116 does not come
into play.  1530 offers a clear prohibition for any undefined Organization to 
have a Jurisdiction containing Players, and therefore such an Organization can 
not have any Foundors, and without Foundors, such an Organization can never be 
formed in the first place.


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

Decision & Reasoning Judge:

Decision: FALSE

Reasoning: I reject the Caller's claim the absence of any "required Founders"
           suffices to bar an Organization from forming.  It seems to me
           quite possible that a class of Organization with no required
           Founders but only "optional Founders" could be permitted in the
           Rules as they currently exist.  Since only the elements of "the
           set of required Founders" are required to be within the Jurisdiction
           of the Organization, the fact that the Jurisdiction is empty is
           not a bar to formation.  I agree with the Caller that Rule 1530
           constitutes regulation of Jurisdiction and hence that Rule 116 is
           not applicable in this case.

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

Decision & Reasoning CotC:

I reverse the Judge's Judgement and judge TRUE.

However, this is for reasons other than those given by the Caller and
addressed by the Judge.

As both the Caller and the Judge seem to agree, the set of Required Foundors 
for an Organization of a Class not defined in the Rules would be empty. 
However, this is, in my opinion, not enough reason to make such an 
Organization impossible.

As the Caller claims, the Judge upholds, and is also found in the decision
of CFJ 818, an Organization of undefined class will have no Players in its
Jurisdiction. As, however, no Required Foundors are present, still all
Required Foundors are in its Jurisdiction - The empty set is a subset of
itself.

So, it seems, I have followed the reasoning of the Judge. And indeed I have,
till here. However, there are other Rules of importance:

If it is legal for an Organization of undefined Class to be FORMED it should
also be legal for it to EXIST. What are the main regulations (small r) about
what an Organization needs - and has an Organization of undefined Class the
possibility to follow them? The relevant Rule is Rule 1528, first Paragraph:

      Let there be a set of Nomic Entities known as Organizations.
      Every individual Organization has associated with it a body of
      text known as its Compact, a Player known as the Organization's
      Administrator, a set of Players who are within the Jurisdiction
      of the Organization's Compact, and a unique specific Name.


So an Organization must have (1) a Compact, (2) an Administrator,
(3) a Jurisdiction of the Compact, (4) a unique specific Name.

As the Judgement on CFJ 818 showed, (3) is existent and necessarily empty for
an Organization of undefined Class. (1) is, as far as I can see, no problem.

When we get to (4) however, problems start. Rule 1533 says that an
Organization is started when its Foundors send a certain message to the
Notary. However, as it seems possible to have an empty set of Foundors,
this could be done by noone sending it to the Notary. But the restriction
that noone sends a message to the Notary is fulfilled trivially, so ANY
possible Organization which has no Foundors DOES exist. But among those will
be some (well, let's not be euphemistic infinitally many) with the same name!
so this on itself would be enough to get a Judgement of UNDECIDABLE (not
TRUE as, if we did not allow Organizations of undefined Class, there would
be no problem with their existance, but if we do allow them, there are).

I would almost say I am therefore lucky that there's (2) also, which makes
'TRUE' the right Judgement. This is because Rule 1531 says, among
other things:

      The Administrator of an Organization must come from within the
      Jurisdiction of the Organization's Compact unless otherwise
      specified by the Rules governing its Class.

So Rule 1528 says an Organization must have an Administrator, Rule 1531
says it must be from within the Jurisdiction of the Compact, unless
otherwise specified by the Rules governing its Class.

So an Organization of undefined Class must have at least one Player in its
Jurisdiction, namely its Administrator. However, as the Judgement on CFJ 818
showed, an Organization of undefined Class cannot have anyone in its
Jurisdiction. Reductio ad absurdum, ergo an Organization of undefined Class
cannot exist. Quod erat demonstrandum.

As the connection between my reasoning and Rule 1533 is only secondary
I will not grant the Injunction.

CotC, Andre

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

Decision & Reasoning Speaker:

Judgement: TRUE

Argument:  

The statement is true because when a new Organisation is to be created
R1533 tells us that the application for the Organisation's creation
must contain the Class of the created Organisation.  It is my claim
that it is impossible for any Player to specify a Class which is not
defined within the rules. 

Before investigating this further however, it is necessary to define
what it is to be a Class.  One argument has it that an Organisation's
Class is simply a set (of Organisations) to which it happens to
belong.  If this were so, one would not necessarily need to name a
Class that was specifically defined in the rules, one could merely
define the relevant set.  This argument has two flaws however, one
minor and one that is ultimately sufficient to sink it entirely. 

The minor problem with this argument is that it is clear that Classes
are not just any subset of the universal set of possible
Organisations.  The language in the rules makes it clear that Classes
partition the universal set, so that any one Organisation only has one
class.  Thus the original claim that a Class is any subset is clearly
too strong.  However, if one allows the argument that a Class is any
equivalence class over Organisations, then one gets an argument that
is quite similar to the original and is not subject to the original
flaw. 

In my opinion, this is still a very dubious argument because we do not
have any way of knowing that every equivalence class is necessarily a
Class, though the reverse does hold.  Therefore, it seems dubious to
assume that the mere act of specifying an equivalence class
necessarily corresponds to specifying an Organisation's Class.  The
rules certainly don't explicitly support this view.  However, it is
still possible to show that the creation of Organisations of undefined
Class should be forbidden, even when conceding this strong claim. 

Let us continue then.  To create an Organisation, it is necessary to
specify the Class to which it belongs.  In the absence of something in
the ruleset specifically defining the Class desired, one must specify
the partition of the universal set of possible Organisations to which
the new Organisation belongs.  In the example of the purported
MouseTrap the class specified was 'non-Group non-Contract non-Contest
class'.  Now this is a perfectly valid logical specification of a
subset of all possible Organisations, but there remains an obligation
to show that this set does in fact contain the supposed Organisation
in question; for a start it needs to be shown that the set (and
remember this set ranges over all possible Organisations) is not
empty.

To show that a set is not empty, one need only demonstrate the
existence of a member of this set, but in this situation, this could
only be done under the assumption that the purported Organisation was
actually an Organisation, but given that this is what the argument is
trying to establish, we see that there is a circularity. 

In summary, the essence of my argument is that the creation of
Organisations of Classes not defined in the rules is forbidden because
no attempt to create such a Organisation can satisfy R1533's
requirement that the application to create the Organisation should
specify the Class to which the Organisation is to belong.

Judgement ends

Michael.



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

Decision & Reasoning : pro-Justiciar

Decision: TRUE

This is another special case following from my Judgement of CFJ 818 
and the interpretation of Rule 116 that I set forth in it.

The set of required Foundors is specified in 'the Rules defining the 
particular Class of Organization', that is, Rule 116. Rule 116 does 
not _specify_ a set of Foundors, therefore it is impossible to submit 
such a set.

Invoking Rule 116 recursively with the argument that if no Foundors 
are required, then all Foundors are optional, is prohibited by my 
interpretation of Rule 116.

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



Evidence:
 * Rule 1533/0
 * Rule 1530/0
 * Rule 116/0
 * Rule 1528/0 (added by CotC)
 * Rule 1531/0 (added by CotC)

----------------------------------------------------------------------


Rule 1533/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Creation of Organizations, and Their Compacts

      Organizations (and, simultaneously, their initial Compacts) are
      created in the following manner:

      A set of Players, known as the Foundors, sends a message to the
      Notary containing the following information:

         i) The Class of the created Organization.
        ii) The Unique Name of the particular Organization being
            created.
       iii) The inital Compact for the proposed Orginization.
        iv) Any information required by Rules governing that specific
            Class of Organization.

      The Organization is created and is in force once the Notary
      receives the above information from all required Foundors.

      The set of required Foundors is specified within the Rules
      defining the particular Class of Organization, but they must be
      from within the Jurisdiction of the new Organization's Compact.
      Additional restrictions on the set of Foundors can be made by
      those Rules.

      This Rule defers when other Rules specifically claim precedence
      over its requirements. Otherwise, these requirements take
      precedence.

History:
Created by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 1530/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Compacts: Jurisdiction

      The Jurisdiction of an Organization's Compact is a subset of the
      set of all Players. A Compact has no force to require, or
      oblige, anything of Players who are not within its Jurisdiction.
      (This does not absolve any Players of duties required of them by
      the Rules.)

      Within its Jurisdiction, a Compact's ability to dictate Players'
      activity is limited to the extent permitted by the Rules.

      A Compact can only have Jurisdiction over Players permitted to
      it by the Rules governing its Class of Organization.

      No Compact may have effect prior to its Creation, nor may it
      have effect subsequent to its dissolution.

      This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule governing
      Compacts.

History:
Created by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 116/0 (Semimutable, MI=3)
Permissibility of the Unprohibited

      Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a Rule is permitted
      and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the Rules,
      which is permitted only when a Rule or set of Rules explicitly or
      implicitly permits it.

History:
Initial Immutable Rule 116, Jun. 30 1993
Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1483, Mar. 15 1995

----------------------------------------


Rule 1528/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Organizations

      Let there be a set of Nomic Entities known as Organizations.
      Every individual Organization has associated with it a body of
      text known as its Compact, a Player known as the Organization's
      Administrator, a set of Players who are within the Jurisdiction
      of the Organization's Compact, and a unique specific Name.

      In addition, any Organization which possesses Treasuries has a
      Player who is Executor of the Organization.  An Organization
      only possess Treasuries if the Rules governing that Orginization
      specify so.

History:
Created by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995

----------------------------------------

Rule 1531/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Administrators and Their Duties

      The Administrator of an Organization must keep an accurate copy
      of its Compact and an accurate list of the Players within the
      Compact's Jurisdiction.

      E must record any and all changes to the Compact, and must, As
      Soon As Possible after such changes, distribute an up-to-date
      copy of the Compact to every Player within the Compact's
      Jurisdiction.

      E must also notify the Notary whenever the Executor (if any) of
      eir Organization Changes.  When the Administrator of an
      Organization changes, the new Administrator must inform the
      Notary of this change.  These notifications must be made As Soon
      As Possible.

      The Administrator of an Organization must come from within the
      Jurisdiction of the Organization's Compact unless otherwise
      specified by the Rules governing its Class.

History:
Created by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995