From owner-nomic-official@teleport.com  Wed Jan 24 05:46:22 1996
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 FAA09578 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 05:46:21 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA09638; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 03:42:36 -0800
Received: by desiree.teleport.com (bulk_mailer v1.3); Wed, 24 Jan 1996 03:42:35 -0800
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id DAA09625 for nomic-official-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 03:42:34 -0800
Received: from wing2.wing.rug.nl (wing2.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.2]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA09618 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 03:42:30 -0800
Message-Id: <199601241142.DAA09618@desiree.teleport.com>
Received: by wing2.wing.rug.nl
	(1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA18542; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 12:42:13 +0100
From: Andre Engels <csg419@wing.rug.nl>
Subject: OFF: CFJ 835 Final Judgement: TRUE
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 96 12:42:13 MET
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO


The texts with (M) before it are only true in the Gamestate in which
Morendil became Speaker in December
The texts with (S) before it are only true in the Gamestate in which
Swann became Speaker in December

======================================================================
		JUDGEMENT UPON APPEAL CFJ 835

	"Rule 1023 shall be interpreted, such that..."

======================================================================
Judge:		Dave Bowen
Judgement:	FALSE
Speaker:	Ian (defaulted)
pro-Speaker:	Michael (defaulted)
		Wes (defaulted)
		(M) Morendil (defaulted)
		(S) Chuck (delegated)
		favor
Judgement:	TRUE
CotC:		Andre
Judgement:	FALSE
Justiciar:	Steve
Judgement:	TRUE
Final Judgement:TRUE

Eligible:	favor, Murphy, Vanyel, Vlad
		(S) Blob, Chuck, Morendil?

Not Eligible:	
Caller:		Kelly
Barred:		
On Hold:	
1005:		KoJen, Michael, Pascal, Swann
		(M) Blob, Chuck
Judged already:	Dave Bowen, Andre, Steve
Defaulted:	(M) Morendil, Wes


Effects: Dave Bowen gains 3 Points for timely Judgement
	 Steve gains 3 Points for timely Judgement
	 Andre gains 3 Points for timely Judgement
	 Ian gains 3 Blots for defaulting on appelate Judgement
	 Ian is not eligible to act as a Judge
	 Michael gains 3 Blots for defaulting on appelate Judgement
	 Michael is not eligible to act as a Judge
         Wes gains 3 Blots for defaulting on appelate Judgement
         Wes is not eligible to act as a Judge
	 (M) Morendil gains 3 Blots for defaulting
	 (M) Morendil is not anymore eligible as a Judge
	 favor gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement

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

History:
  Called by Kelly, 17 November 1995, 15:14 MET
  Assigned to Dave Bowen, 21 November 1995, 11:57 MET
  Judged FALSE by Dave Bowen, 27 November 1995, 22:30 -0600
  Appealed by Kelly, timestamp lost
  Appealed by Steve, 29 November 1995, 06:01 -0800
  Appealed by Andre, 1 December 1995, 12:29 MET
  Assigned to Ian as Speaker, 8 December 1995, 14:55 MET
  Assigned to Andre as CotC, 8 December 1995, 14:55 MET
  Assigned to Steve as Justiciar, 8 December 1995, 14:55 MET
  Judged TRUE by Steve, 14 December 1995, 19:41 +1100 (EST)
  Judged TRUE by Andre, 15 December 1995, 14:43 MET (Wow! That was close!)
  Defaulted by Ian, 15 December 1995, 14:55 MET
  Assigned to Michael as pro-Speaker, 15 December 1995, timestamp lost
  Defaulted by Michael, 22 December 1995, time unknown
  Assigned to Wes as pro-Speaker, 4 January 1996, 01:02 +0001
  Defaulted by Wes, 11 January 1996, 01:02 +0001
  (M) Assigned to Morendil as pro-Speaker, 15 January 1996, 13:42 +0100
  (M) Defaulted by Morendil, 22 January 1996, 13:42 +0100
  (S) Assigned to Chuck as pro-Speaker, 23 January 1996, 12:49 MET
  (M) Assigned to favor as pro-Speaker, 23 January 1996, 12:49 MET
  (S) Delegated by Chuck to favor, 23 January 1996, 07:43 CST
  Judged TRUE by favor, 23 January 1996, 12:05 EST

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

Full Statement:

Rule 1023 shall be interpreted, such that for each action which a
Player is obliged to perform, but fails to perform, within the time
required by this Rule is a separate and distinct Crime, and
furthermore each action performed by a Player in an order which is
inconsistent with the requirements of this Rule is itself a Crime
separate and distinct from each other such action, and from any Crime
for failure to meet the time requirement.

Requested Injunction:

i bar nobody from this CFJ, and i request than an Injunction be issued
to annotate Rule 1023 with this Statement.  the list of Relevant Rules
is Rule 1023.

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

Argument:

it has never been well-established what it means to violate this Rule.
i am making this CFJ to try to establish a consistent judicial
precedent for the proper interpretation of Rule 1023.

i will not complicate the example by dealing with 1023's parallel duty
tracks; obviously, duties on different duty tracks are independent of
each other and can be performed in any order.  1023 gives every Player
one duty track for each Office e holds, plus one more for duties not
pertaining to any Office, so Officers have more leeway in ordering
their Moves.  all times in the following illustration are measured in
days, for simplicity.

let us presume, throughout, that at time T=0 a Player who holds no
Offices incurs a duty D0, at time T=1 e incurs another duty D1, and at
time T=5 e incurs a third duty D2.  let us now examine several
possible orderings and timings of fulfillment of these duties, and the
Crimes which would arise from these various orders.

of course, the "desired" order is to perform D0 no later than T=7, D1
no later than T=8, and D2 no later than T=12, and such that D0 is
performed before D1 and D1 performed before D2.

first, let us approach order: if the duties are discharged in the
order D0,D1,D2, there are no Crimes for ordering.  if they are
discharged in the order D1,D0,D2 the order D0,D2,D1, or the order
D2,D0,D1, there is one Crime (because there is only a single action
taken out of order).  if they are discharged in the order D2,D1,D0 or
the order D1,D2,D0 then there are two Crimes, because D0 was
unfulfilled at the time that both D1 and D2 were performed.  each
Violation consists of performing a properly subsequent duty while one
or more properly precedent duties remain unfulfilled.

the case of timing is simpler: the failure to perform a duty before
the latest time permitted (that is, seven days, except when another
Rule specifies, in which case this Rule has no bearing) is a Crime.
so, in the above example, if the Player does not fulfill duty D0 before
time T=7, e commits a Crime, regardless of when e performed duties D1
or D2.

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

Decision & Reasoning Judge:

Decision: FALSE

Reasoning: My interpretation of this rule is that a crime is committed for
           each out-of-order action.  Thus, using the Caller's example an
           order of D2, D0, D1 would be two crimes, not the one crime the
           Caller claims, since both D0 and D1 are required to precede D2.
           Similarly, an order of D2, D1, D0 would be three crimes, not the
           two Caller claims; the two crimes for D2 preceding D0 and D1 plus
           one for D1 preceding D0.



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

Decision & Reasoning Justiciar:

In the matter of the Appeal of CFJ 835, I overturn Bowen's Judgement
of FALSE and Judge the Statement TRUE.

This has been a most curious CFJ! In fact I accept something very
close, perhaps even identical, to Judge Bowen's analysis, and reject
Kelly's analysis.  Yet Judge Bowen's argument seems to me to clearly
support a finding of TRUE, while I find that Kelly's actual argument
misanalyzes R1023. A must curious state of affairs.

To sum up what follows, I shall argue that Bowen, and Kelly in her 
Statement (but not her arguments), are correct that a Crime is
committed for each out of order action. I shall argue with Bowen,
and against Kelly, that the ordering D2, D0, D1 represents 2 Crimes
and not 1. And finally, I shall argue against both Kelly and Bowen
that these Crimes are committed not when D2 is performed (as
Bowen later claimed he meant), but when D0 and D1 is performed.
I shall argue that the performance of D2 is not actually a Crime
at all!  Although this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs, showing
the need for an amendment to R1023 (described below), that is what
R1023 actually says.

My analysis focuses on the ordering D2, D0, D1. It will help to have
before us once again the relevant part of R1023:

      Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action
      "as soon as possible", then: 

      (i)  if the action is one that a Player is required to 
           perform in the course of carrying out Official
           duties, then the Player is required to perform the
           action within a week, and no later than any other 
           action which the performance of the duties of that 
           Office subsequently requires em to perform;

      Failure to observe these time requirements is a Class D Crime.


The key phrases are: "...the Player is required to perform the
action...no *later* than any other action which [e is] *subsequently*
require[d] to perform." Because of the use of the words "later" and
"subsequently", I call this the 'LS formulation'.

Now think again about the ordering D2, D0, D1. In this case, has D2
been performed *later* than any other action *subsequently* required
to be performed? No! In the first place, D2 was the *last* of the
requirements to be incurred, so there *is* no action subsequently
required to be performed which D2 has been performed later than. And
in the second place, D2 is performed *first* in the series, so there
are no other actions in the example which it can be performed later
than. In fact, the only way the performance of D2 could be a Crime is
if it were performed later than the performance of some hypothetical
D3 which it was supposed to be performed prior to. Since that
situation does not obtain in the example, the performance of D2 out
of order is not a Crime.

When, then, is the Crime committed? Look at D0. Has *it* been performed
later than some action that was subsequently required to be performed?
Yes it has! It has been performed later than D2, which we stipulated
became required to be performed after D0. So the performance of D0
is a Crime. The same goes for D1, which has also been performed later
than D2. So, in the example, 2 Crimes are committed, one when D0 is
performed, and one when D1 is performed.

But, looking back at Kelly's Statement, this is precisely what that
Statement alleges! Kelly's Statement alleges two things:

1) ...each action which a Player is obliged to perform, but fails to
perform, within the time required by this Rule is a separate and
distinct Crime, 

2) ...each action performed by a Player in an order which is
inconsistent with the requirements of this Rule is itself a Crime
separate and distinct from each other such action, and from any Crime
for failure to meet the time requirement.

About (1) there seems to be no disagreement. We've been discussing
(2). In the case of the ordering D2, D0, D1, the only actions which
are in fact inconsistent with the requirements of R1023 are D0 and D1,
and lo and behold, the performance of each of these actions is itself
a separate and distinct Crime. So Kelly's Statement is TRUE, despite
the bad argument she gave for it, and despite Bowen's Judgement of
FALSE, delivered in spite of the good argument he gave for its truth!
Bizarre.

That takes care of the Judicial matters, but more is left to do. Clearly,
the current wording of R1023, ie the LS formulation, is inadequate.
This is so because in a case like the one above, we actually *want*
there to be just one Crime, committed when D2 is performed. Otherwise,
we run into oddities, even absurdities. After D2 is performed, we already
know that an ordering Crime has been committed (or rather, will be
committed when D0 is performed), but as things stand we have to wait
until D0 is performed before we know when the Crime is committed.
This is silly. What can be done about it?

The answer will, I think, surprise. It certainly surprised me! I
propose to replace the LS formulation with what I call the EA
formulation, ie replace "later" with "earlier" and "subsequently"
with "already". That would mean R1023 would read like this:

      Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action
      "as soon as possible", then:

      (i)  if the action is one that a Player is required to
           perform in the course of carrying out Official
           duties, then the Player is required to perform the
           action within a week, and no earlier than any other
           action which the performance of the duties of that
           Office already requires em to perform;

This actually enforces exactly the same partial ordering on requirements
as before - and gives the right answer in the D2, D0, D1 case. Performance
of D2 in this scenario is now a Crime (as it should be), since it is the
performance of an action earlier than the performance of other actions
(D0 and D1), which are already required to be performed. To see that it
makes sense more generally, consider the simpler case of rerquirements to
perform actions D1 and D2, incurred in that order, but performed in the
reverse order D2, D1.

Again, I think it's clear that in this case, we ought to tie the time
of commission of the Crime to the time of commission of D2. But under
the LS formulation, it's the performance of D1 that's the Crime, since
only D1 has been performed *later* than an action *subsequently* required
to be performed. The EA formulation gets the right answer, since D2 has
been performed *earlier* than some action *already* required to be
performed.


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 --


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

Decision & Reasoning CotC:

I uphold the Judge's original decision of FALSE, although through another
reasoning.

The first thing we should do is look closely at Rule 1023. In what case is the
Crime, described in this Rule committed? Reading the Rule, it says: "[...]the
Player is required to perform the action within a week, and no later than any
other action e is subsequently required to perform which (...)" (the wording
of part (ii). Part (i) is not fundamentally different).

So the crime is committed if a Player does NOT perform the action e is
required to perform within a week, and no later than any other action e is
subsequently required to perform etcetera. That is, if something which is
required later is done earlier, the Crime consists of not doing the second
thing before the first one.

I think I am more clear if I make an example like the Caller has done, but
this time a simpler one with only two actions, D0 and D1, of which the
obligation to do D0 came before D1, and D0 should be done ASAP. If now D1 is
done first, a Crime has been commited of the type defined in Rule 1023.

At first I thought this would, as Steve argues, make the Crime happen only
when D0 is performed, but looking back, that is not the case. The Crime namely
is NOT the fact that D1 has been done before D0 (or D0 after D1) in itself,
the Crime is that D0 has not been done before D1. And this is something which
is indeed the case at the time (or, in fact, an infinitesimally time later)
D1 is performed.

However, let's now look at the situations described by the Caller.

Order D0, D1, D2: No Crime. I suppose anyone would agree.
Order D1, D0, D2: One Crime, namely failure to do D0 before D1.
Order D0, D2, D1: One Crime, failure to do D1 before D2.
Order D2, D0, D1: Two Crimes: Failure to do D0 before D2, failure to do D1
  before D2.
Order D2, D1, D0: Two Crimes: Failure to do D0 before D2, failure to do D1
  before D2. There is also a failure to do D0 before D1, but the failure to
  do D0 before D1 and the failure to do D0 before D2 are one Crime, namely
  the failure to do D0 before any other action (which etc.) which the Player
  is subsequently required to perform.
Order D1, D2, D0: One Crime. As above, it might be said there are two failures,
  but they make only one Crime.

So, now let's get back to the Statement of the CFJ. What I don't agree with is
the second part: "...and furthermore each action performed by a Player in an
order which is inconsistent with the requirements of this Rule is itself a
Crime separate and distinct from each other such action", and the thirth part
"...and from any Crime for failure to meet the time requirement.

The second part is clearly nonsense. If it were TRUE, then the order D1, D0
of my 'simple' case would already be two Crimes, which I think hardly anyone
would argue. To be more clear: D0 and D1 are both out of order, so according
to the Statement of the CFJ they would both be a Crime.

The thirth part is also FALSE in my opinion, although I can imagine I change
my opinion here. The case we are talking about is this: D0 is now not only
done after D1, but also more than a week after the obligation to do it started.
In my opinion there is still only one Crime, namely the failure to do it
'within a week, and no later than any other action which...'. It could be
argued that this are 2 Crimes though, namely 1 for failure to D0 within a week,
and another for failure to do it 'no later than...'

Andre

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

Reasons and arguments, (Pro-)Pro-Speaker:

This is a tough one for a number of reasons, and I extend
grateful thanks to all past Judges and Justices on the case.
And especially to CoC Andre for his tabular summary of the
possiblities.

The main area of disagreement in the history of this case
is over exactly when the Crime occurs if a Player gets an
ASAP requirement to do D0, then gets one to do D1, then
does D1, and then does D0.  The Rule says that to satisfy
ASAP on D0, D0 must be done "no later than" D1.  At what
point is that requirement violated?  Andre points out
quite correctly that once D1 has been done, it is no
longer possible to satisfy ASAP for D0.  But does a
Player violate a Rule by putting emself into a position
where it is logically impossible for em to satisfy it?
I tend to think not.

To expand slightly: I would expand "do D0 no later than D1"
into:

   - do D0 at some point in the future, and

   - do not do D0 later than you do D1

Once a Player has done D1 without having done D0, it is no
longer possible to satisfy both of these conditions.  But
does that mean that one has already failed to satisfy them?
Probably not.  If I'm required to "say an integer on
Monday, and then say the integer which is half that integer
on Tuesday", and I say "7" on Monday, it's now impossible
for me to do my duty on Tuesday, but I have not in fact
failed in my duty until Tuesday ends.

It is interesting to note, then, that if a Player simply
*never* does D0, e will violate the "within a week" part
of ASAP, but does not necessarily ever violate the ordering
requirements.  Performing D1 is therefore not itself a
violation of the ordering requirements, as Steve points
out; it is also not a Crime, and not "in an order inconsistent
with the requirements of this Rule".  So the second part
of the Statement holds up nicely.

The first part of the Statement is relatively uncontroversial,
and I will refer the reader to prior Judgements for details.
The third part of the Statement is not entirely clear to me.
One might interpret it as saying that one action can be
two Crimes under the ASAP Rule, if it is both late and out
of order; I think this would be an error, but I also don't
think that's exactly what the Statement says.  I think the
Statement says that each action which is either a violation
of the time requirement, or of the ordering requirement,
or both, is a distinct and separate Crime, and I think that
that is true.

Overall, then, I will Judge this Statement TRUE.  I also
endorse Steve's proposed amendment to the ASAP Rule to
make all this clearer and more sensible.

Respectfully submitted,

Justice favor

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

Evidence:
  Rule 1023/5 (added by CotC)


Rule 1023/5 (Mutable, MI=1)
Definition of "As Soon As Possible"

      Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action
      "as soon as possible", then: 

      (i)  if the action is one that a Player is required to 
           perform in the course of carrying out Official
           duties, then the Player is required to perform the
           action within a week, and no later than any other 
           action which the performance of the duties of that 
           Office subsequently requires em to perform;

      otherwise,

      (ii) e is required to perform that action within a week, 
           and no later than any other action e is subsequently 
           required to perform which is not an action performed
           in the course of carrying out Official duties.

      Failure to observe these time requirements is a Class D Crime. 
      However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded
      from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.

      This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its 
      requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. 
      Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be 
      performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without
      incurring a Penalty.  It takes precedence over other Rules which
      define a later latest time for the performance of these actions.
      Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this
      Rule defers to them.

      This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of
      Players who are On Hold.

History:
Created by Proposal 805 [date unknown]
Amended by Proposal 907 [date unknown]
Amended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995
Amended(4) by Proposal 1727, Oct. 6 1995
Amended(5) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995

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