From  Fri Dec  8 10:20:33 1995
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.11/8.6.11) with ESMTP id KAA17126 for <>; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 10:20:32 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.7/8.7/1.10IUPO) with SMTP id KAA22693 for <>; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 10:18:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.6.12/8.6.9) id FAA04635 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 05:58:11 -0800
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id FAA04613 for <>; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 05:58:07 -0800
Message-Id: <>
Received: by
	( id AA14639; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 14:56:02 +0100
From: Andre Engels <>
Subject: OFF: CFJ 836 Judgement: TRUE
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 95 14:56:02 MET
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

	An Organization's Compact cannot specify any method of 
	expanding it's Jurisdiction which is not specifically and 
	explicitly allowed for in the Rules.
Judge:		KoJen (defaulted)
Judgement:	TRUE

Eligible:	Andre, Chuck, Coco, Dave Bowen, Ian, Marc, Michael, 
		Morendil, Oerjan, Pascal, Saltwater, Swann, Vanyel, 
		Vlad, Wes, Zefram

Not Eligible:	
Caller:		Wes
Barred:		Kelly, elJefe, Steve
On Hold:	favor
Defaulted:	KoJen

Effects:	KoJen gains 3 Blots for defaulting on Judgement, and
		  is not anymore eligible to be selected as a Judge
		  until e requests to be eligible again.
		Oerjan gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement


  Called by Kelly, 18 November 1995, timestamp lost
  Assigned to KoJen, 21 November 1995, 11:59 MET
  Defaulted by KoJen, 28 November 1995, 11:59 MET
  Assigned to Oerjan, 1 December 1995, 9:47 MET
  Judged TRUE by Oerjan, 1 December 1995, timestamp lost


We would like to Bar any Player who was declared (whether successfully or 
not) as part of the Triumvirate during the Mousetrap Scam.  (Note that 
Rule 869/2 makes this a valid method to identify a Player, as it is 
unambiguous; we're just not sure who those three Players were...) 


A Compact cannot require any actions of someone outside it's Jurisdiction. 
Therefore, since any prospective Player is by definition outside the
Compact's Jurisdiction, the Compact cannot cause (or coerce) that Player
to be included within it's Jurisdiction. 


Decision & Reasoning Judge:

I judge TRUE.

I take this to be a statement about general principles, rather than
restricted to the particular Classes of Organizations currently defined.
(In the latter case, it might very well be that all the Classes have
highly restricted methods of expansion. I will not go further into that.)
The caller's arguments are consistent with this.

Wes's arguments are somewhat, but not fatally faulty. He notes "A Compact
cannot require any actions of someone outside it's Jurisdiction." I do not
find that this alone is enough for his conclusion to hold. 

Specifically, I do not believe that the (forced) inclusion of a Player 
into a jurisdiction counts as an action by that Player.

However, I find that it does count as a requirement, and so Rule 1530
still applies. 

Yours logically,


  Rule 1529 (excerpt)
  Rule 1530 (excerpt)

"Statutes: ... must be obeyed by Players within the Compact's
Jurisdiction..." [Rule 1529/0]

"A Compact has no force to require, or oblige, anything of Players who
are not within its Jurisdiction... This Rule takes precedence over any
other Rule governing Compacts." [Rule 1530/0]