From  Mon Jan 15 08:22:31 1996
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id IAA20499 for <>; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 08:22:30 -0600
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.6.12/8.6.9) id GAA14123 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 06:19:57 -0800
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id GAA14100 for <>; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 06:19:53 -0800
Message-Id: <>
Received: by
	( id AA24047; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 15:18:18 +0100
From: Andre Engels <>
Subject: OFF: CFJ 843 Judgement: TRUE
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 96 15:18:18 MET
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

        ASSIGNMENT CFJ 843

    The Rules in general should be interpreted so that if a
    sentence says that 'event X happens and event Y
    happens', where X and Y are both modifications of some
    sort to the game state, the word 'and' is _not_ taken to
    mean that Y cannot occur if X does not occur.

Judge: 		Swann (defaulted)
Judgement:	TRUE

Eligible: 	Andre, Blob, Chuck, favor, Kelly, Steve, Vanyel, Zefram

Not Eligible:	
Caller:     	Morendil
On Hold:    	Dave Bowen
1005:		KoJen, Michael, Pascal, Wes
Defaulted:	Swann

Effects:	Swann gains 3 Blots for defaulting on Judgement
		Swann is not eligible to act as a Judge
	      *	favor gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement
		  (1 hour and 4 minutes - is that a record?)


  Called by Morendil, Mon, 1 Jan 1996 22:43:01 +0001
  Assigned to Swann, 4 January 1995, 02:34 MET
  Defaulted by Swann, 11 January 1995, 02:34 MET
  Assigned to favor, 15 January 1995, 13:55 MET
  Judged TRUE by favor, 15 January 1995, 08:59 EST


Reasons & arguments : none.


Decision & Reasoning Judge:

In the Judgement of CFJ 842, the Judge, a close personal
friend of mine, wrote:

>                                             The relevant
> part of 1469/2 says "If A, then X and Y".  If some other
> rule with a higher precendence forbids X, then if A, I
> would expect that the effect of 1469/2 would be Y.

This generalizes nicely into the Statement of this CFJ,
and suggests that it should be Judged TRUE.  And in general
it seems reasonable to assume that, absent any strong reason
in the rest of the Rule in question to think otherwise,
the connective "and" should be taken to mean, well, "and".
Just as if the Rule had been written "Event X happens."
"Event Y happens." rather than as "Event X happens and
Event Y happens."

Respectfully submitted,

Judge favor