From owner-nomic-official@teleport.com  Wed Jan 24 05:38:03 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 FAA09549 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 05:37:51 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA08294; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 03:34:43 -0800
Received: by desiree.teleport.com (bulk_mailer v1.3); Wed, 24 Jan 1996 03:34:39 -0800
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id DAA08252 for nomic-official-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 03:34:35 -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 DAA08198 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 03:34:15 -0800
Message-Id: <199601241134.DAA08198@desiree.teleport.com>
Received: by wing2.wing.rug.nl
	(1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA17945; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 12:33:53 +0100
From: Andre Engels <csg419@wing.rug.nl>
Subject: OFF: CFJ 841 Judgement: FALSE
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 96 12:33:53 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

======================================================================
        ASSIGNMENT CFJ 841

      "Rule 1469 should be interpreted so that when the
      destruction of a Treasury which contains a negative
      amount of any Currency is required by the Rules, that
      Treasury is destroyed even if the transfer of the
      negative Currencies within does not happen."

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

Judge: 		Swann (defaulted)
		(M) Blob (defaulted)
		favor
Judgement:	FALSE

Eligible: 	Andre, favor, Kelly, Murphy, Steve, Vanyel, Vlad
		(S) Blob, Chuck, Morendil

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

Effects:	Swann gains 3 Blots for defaulting on Judgement
		Swann is not eligible to be a Judge
		(M) Blob gains 3 Blots for defaulting
		(M) Blob is not eligible to be a Judge
		favor gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement

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

History:
  Called by Morendil, Mon, 1 Jan 1996 22:43:01 +0001
  Assigned to Swann, 4 January 1995, 02:40 MET
  Defaulted by Swann, 11 January 1995, 02:40 MET
  (M) Assigned to Blob, 15 January 1995, 13:50 +0100
  (M) Defaulted by Blob, 22 January 1995, 13:50 +0100
  Assigned to favor, 23 January 1995, 12:52 MET
  (M) Judged FALSE by favor, 23 January 1996, 10:23 EST
  (S) Judged FALSE by favor, 23 January 1996, 10:45 EST

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

Reasons & arguments : none.

Relevant Rules : 1472, 1469. I respectfully request of the Judge an
Injuction to annotate Rule 1469 with this Statement.

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

Reasons and Arguments, Judge:

The Statement is, I fear, FALSE only on extremely narrow and
uninteresting, yet unavoidable, grounds.  As my esteemed
colleague noted in the Judgement of CFJ 842:

> Rule 1469/2 doesn't say anything about what happens when
> Treasury-destruction in general occurs; it just talks about
> what happens when a Treasury-possessing entity is destroyed.

Therefore any statement of the form "Rule 1469 should be
interpreted so that <some general statement about all
Treasury-destructions>" is FALSE on its face.  There could
be other instances of Treasury-destruction, unrelated to
the destruction of a Treasury-possessing entity, and since
1469 would be silent on them, it seems clear that it cannot
be interpreted as having any bearing whatever upon them.

Note that a related Statement such as

      "Rule 1469 should be interpreted so that when an
      Entity which possesses a Treasury is destroyed, or
      ceases to be permitted to possess a Treasury, the
      Treasury is destroyed even if the transfer of the
      negative Currencies within does not happen."

would have been judged TRUE (see the Judge's arguments
in CFJ's 842 and 843).  And so, of course, would have
been

      "The Rules should be interpreted so that when the
      destruction of a Treasury which contains a negative
      amount of any Currency is required by the Rules, that
      Treasury is destroyed even if the transfer of the
      negative Currencies within does not happen."

for the uninteresting reason that *any* statement of
the form "The Rules should be interpreted so that when
X is required by the Rules, X occurs" must be TRUE.

It is possible to argue that if a Statement like "The
Rules generally should be interpreted so that X" is TRUE,
then so is any statement of the form "Rule ZZZZ should
be interpreted so that X".  If that were correct, I should
Judge the Statement in this CFJ to be TRUE, on the grounds
that it says "Rule 1469 should be interpreted so that
if the Rules require X to occur, then it does occur".

But I think this would be misleading; while it is true
in logic that every statement implies a tautology, we
are dealing with human language here, not logic, and
"Rule 1469 should be interpreted so that X" is not merely
a more complex way of saying "If Rule 1469, then X".

The injunction is, of course, denied.

Respectfully submitted,

Judge favor