From owner-nomic-official@teleport.com  Tue Jan 30 06:23:29 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 GAA25800 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 06:23:28 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA26503; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 03:46:09 -0800
Received: by desiree.teleport.com (bulk_mailer v1.3); Tue, 30 Jan 1996 03:46:08 -0800
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id DAA26494 for nomic-official-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 03:46:08 -0800
Received: from wing3.wing.rug.nl (wing3.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.3]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA26464 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 03:46:02 -0800
Message-Id: <199601301146.DAA26464@desiree.teleport.com>
Received: by wing3.wing.rug.nl
	(1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA09129; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 12:44:58 +0100
From: Andre Engels <csg419@wing.rug.nl>
Subject: OFF: CJF 846: Concurring Opinion
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 96 12:44:58 MET
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

A concurring Opinion has been issued on CFJ 846. It can be found in this
posting, between the 'Reasoning & Arguments Judge' and 'Evidence'-parts.


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
The texts with (S+) before it are only true in the (S)-state with
Morendil not deregistering

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

			JUDGEMENT CFJ 846

  "The Rules should be interpreted that Swann is currently Speaker"

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

Judge:		Andre
Judgement:	TRUE

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

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

Effects:	Andre gains 3 Points for timely Judgement

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

History:
  Called by Swann, 22 January 1996, 16:27 -0500
  Assigned to Andre, 23 January 1996, 12:54 MET
  Judged TRUE by Andre, 29 January 1996, 13:40 MET
  Concurring Opinion by Steve, 30 January 1996, 00:26 +1100 (EST)
  (M,S-) Appealed by Morendil, 29 January 1996, 20:54 +0100
  Concurring Opinion supported by Kelly, 29 January 1996, 21:57 EST5
  Concurring Opinion supported by Michael, 30 January 1996, 11:05 GMT

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

Arguments:

These need no arguments, all relivant info has spammed the PF over the period
of crisis.  I, in fact, have little oppinion on how these Statements should
be resolved and will offer no argumenrts other than to plead for a difinitive
and comprehensive judgement from the Judge on each of these so we can legally
end the indertermancy of the gamestate.

I would also ask interested parties to submit CFJs on the nature of the
Currency Transfers that initiated the crisis.  I, myself, have avoided the
issue and lack the knowledge to come up with a difinitve statement for
a CFJ.

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

Reasoning & Arguments Judge:

It seems clear to me, that the fate of this CFJ is dependant on the question
of whether and when the transfer of very many Points from Morendil to the
Bank to disown his Proposals did occur. At first I hoped to have the Judgement
on CFJ 845 to guide me, but 'the end is neah', and I haven't received a result
on that one yet. So I'm going to try to sort things out myself.

The main source of disagreement seems to be, whether these tansfers were
Class I or Class III transfers. 
Let's first look at the text in Rule 1451/1:
"The player so disowning a proposal loses a flat fee of five points (...)"

Apart from this, no text in 1451/1 could be of importance to this discussion.
Especially, no mention is made of where these points are going, or how this
transfer takes place.

It's clear that Rule 1479/0 is applicable:

"     Whenever a Rule calls for a Player to lose a number of Points
      without specifying where these Points shall be transferred to,
      the Player shall be required to transfer that number of Points
      from eir own Treasury to the Bank.

(...)

      All of these transfers are involuntary in nature."

So, Rules 1451+1479 together say that Morendil is (or should I say was?)
required to transfer a (large) number of Points from eir own Treasury to the
Bank. These transfers (one for each Proposal disowned) are involuntary in
nature. There is no contradiction in 1479, in my opinion. So till here I
follow Morendil's line of reasoning. However, now we look at Rule 1472:


"     A transfer which is explicitly and directly required to take
      place by a Rule is initiated by that Rule, and is called a Class
      I Transfer.

(...)

      For the purpose of this Rule, a Rule, or an Entity other than
      the Rules to which the Rules have granted the power to require
      Players to perform actions, which requires a Player to initiate
      a transfer is _not_ requiring the transfer.  Such a transfer is
      a Class III transfer initiated by that Player.  This Rule takes
      precedence over any Rule which would require a Player to
      initiate a transfer which is prohibited by this Rule."

Well then, Rule 1472 is quite clear:
If the Rules require the transfer, the transfer is Class I.
If the Rules require a Player to INITIATE the transfer, the transfer is
  Class III.

However, Rule 1479 clearly says: "the Player shall be required to 
transfer...", not "the Player shall be required to initiate the transfer...",
or any text which could be explained in the same way (i.e. any text of
the form "the Player shall be required to do X", where X would initiate the
transfer). So the loss and gain of Points in Rule 1479 are Class I. As to
the timing matters, I refer to my own Arguments as Caller on CFJ 845:


"Morendil interprets this differently, namely as "Class I and Class II
 transfers take place at the time the Rules declare them to take place." 
 In my opinion both are grammatically correct. However, my interpretation 
 has not only the advantage of following Game Custom, but also of having 
 meaning. With this last I mean, that, if Morendils interpretation is taken,
 the line doesn't have a sensible meaning at all, since it only forces 
 things which are forced to happen anyway."

Chuck was too reluctant to make a Judgement which would imply e was not the
Judge on the Statement, however, e did agree with me. I have added eir quite 
extensive Reasoning as Evidence.

So, finding that Morendil did indeed loose his many Points at the time he
disowned his Proposals, he did not win. As Kelly's Score reports have shown,
in this case Swann won the Game. As our former Speaker (Ian) had abandoned,
Swann, already having become Speaker-Elect, Rule 785 becomes Speaker
automatically. As no Speaker Transition has taken place since then, Swann is
Speaker.

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

Concurring Opinion:

I concur with Judge Andre's Judgement that the Statement is TRUE. 
However I disagree with some the arguments he presents, and arrive
at his conclusion via different means.

In particular, I do not agree with Judge Andre's assessment that
there is a meaningful distinction to be drawn between those cases
in which "a Player is required to transfer" and those in which
"a Player is required to initiate a transfer". It is my view that
these phrases are synonymous, and that both have the implication
that voluntary action is required on the part of the Player to
make the transfer, for example, a post to the Public Forum in the
case of points or Marks, saying in effect "I hereby transfer...".
However, R1479 explicitly states that the transfers are involuntary
in nature. Since R1479 apparently requires that the transfers for
disowning be both voluntary and involuntary, the conclusion is
inescapable that R1479 is self-contradictory. 

It is my view that in such cases of self-contradictory Rules that
we must do our best to respect as much of the Rule as we can.
Nevertheless we must acknowledge that some part of the Rule will
be violated due to the presence of the contradiction. The only
question to be settled then is: which part? As I have argued
extensively elsewhere, it is my view that game custom, commonsense
and consistency (with, for example, the language in R1451 and the
rest of the language in R1479) all favour the interpretation that the
transfers for disowning are involuntary transfers, directly required
by Rule 1451. This makes them Class I transfers according to the
definition in R1472, taking place when they are required to take
place, According to Chuck's non-Judgement of CFJ 845, in the case
of these particular transfers for disowning, they took place
on Dec 22. The subsequent events are admirably summed up by Andre
in his Judgement.

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 --

Kelly Martin

Michael.



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

Evidence (added by Judge):

Rule 785/2
Rule 1451/1
Rule 1472/2
Rule 1479/0
CFJ 845, non-Judgement by Chuck
Score reports for the period 24 December 1995 - 22 January 1996, added by
  reference

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

Rule 785/2 (Mutable, MI=1)
Abandonment of Speakerhood

      If any Player suspects that the Speaker has Abandoned, e may
      send a message to all Players calling on the Speaker to announce
      eir presence.  The Speaker must reply to all Players within one
      week; if e does not, and the Speaker has not changed in that
      week, e is defined to have Abandoned.

      If the Speaker has Abandoned, then if there is already a
      Speaker-Elect e immediately becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker
      becomes a Voter.  If not, a new Speaker shall be chosen
      according to the Order of Succession, defined elsewhere, with
      the first Player who called for the Speaker to announce eir
      Presence as the Arbiter of Succession.

      The new Speaker shall make reasonable effort to obtain the
      former Speaker's materials: proposal queue, voting records, etc.
      but if this is not possible, then the new Speaker shall
      request that these be resubmitted by the Players.  A Speaker
      who Abandons commits a Class A Crime

History:
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1424, Feb. 7 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995

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

Rule 1451/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
Disowning Proposals

      A player may disown eir own proposal if it has not yet been
      distributed or if no more than four days have passed since its 
      distribution, by sending a statement disowning it to the Public 
      Forum.  

      The player so disowning a proposal loses a flat fee of five
      points, reported by the Assessor, but any other score changes,
      blots, or other effects resulting from the player's submission
      of that proposal, including but not limited to formatting
      penalties, rule repeal rewards, new player bonuses, and awards
      or penalties for votes cast on that proposal are cancelled and
      shall not be taken into account.  The disowning Player does not
      receive any Extra Votes for a Proposal he disowned, even if it
      passes. 

      Neither the Assessor nor any Player who has been Assessor since
      the beginning of the voting period on that proposal may disown a
      proposal, unless that proposal has not yet been distributed. 

      This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which would
      otherwise seek to reward or penalize any player based on the
      disowned proposal. 


History:
Created by Proposal 1549, Apr. 14 1995
Amended(1) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995

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

Rule 1472/2 (Mutable, MI=1)
Transfer of Currencies

      It shall be legal to transfer Currencies between Treasuries,
      provided this is done in accordance with the Rules.  Every
      transfer shall involve a positive amount of exactly one
      Currency, which shall be transferred from exactly one Treasury
      into exactly one other Treasury.  Every transfer has an
      initiator, which is the Entity which causes the transfer to take
      place.

      A transfer which is explicitly and directly required to take
      place by a Rule is initiated by that Rule, and is called a Class
      I Transfer.

      A transfer which is required to take place by an Entity (other
      than the Rules) to which the Rules have granted the power to
      require Currency Transfers to take place is initiated by that
      Entity (_not_ the Rule which grants that power to that Entity),
      and is called a Class II Transfer.

      A transfer which is not required to take place, and which is
      instead the consequence of a Player's action, is initiated by
      that Player, and is a called a Class III Transfer.

      For the purpose of this Rule, a Rule, or an Entity other than
      the Rules to which the Rules have granted the power to require
      Players to perform actions, which requires a Player to initiate
      a transfer is _not_ requiring the transfer.  Such a transfer is
      a Class III transfer initiated by that Player.  This Rule takes
      precedence over any Rule which would require a Player to
      initiate a transfer which is prohibited by this Rule.

      A Class I transfer is not permitted if there is no Rule which
      specifies a Player who is to detect and report the transfer.

      A Class II transfer is not permitted if there is no Rule, or
      Entity other than the Rules to which the Rules have granted the
      power to require Players to perform actions, which specifies a
      Player who is to detect and report the transfer.

      A Class II or Class III Transfer is not permitted if the
      Treasury from which the Currency is being transferred will
      possess a negative quantity of that Currency after the transfer
      has been completed.

      A Class III Transfer is not permitted unless the transfer is
      initiated by the Executor of the Owner of the Treasury from
      which the Currency is being transferred.

      This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would permit a
      transfer prohibited by this Rule.

      The Recordkeepor of a Currency must be notified of a transfer
      involving that Currency within seven days, unless another Rule
      specifies a different time limit for reporting a certain type of
      transfer.  For a Class I or Class II transfer, the notification
      shall be made by the Player required to detect and report it.
      For a Class III transfer, the notification shall be made by the
      Player who initiated it.

      Class I and Class II transfers take place at the time they are
      required to take place.  Class III transfers take place at the
      time they are reported.

[CFJ 793: Notification may take place as part of an Official Report to
 the Public Forum.]

History:
Created by Proposal 1601, Jun. 19 1995
Amended(1) by Proposal 1649, Aug. 1 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1702, Sep. 1 1995

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

Rule 1479/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Point Penalties and Awards

      Whenever a Rule calls for a Player to lose a number of Points
      without specifying where these Points shall be transferred to,
      the Player shall be required to transfer that number of Points
      from eir own Treasury to the Bank.

      Whenever a Rule calls for a Player to receive a number of
      Points, but does not specify where the Points shall be received
      from, that number of Points shall be transferred from the Bank
      to that Player's Treasury.

      The payment of all Salaries shall be by transfer of Points from
      the Bank to that of the Player receiving the Salary.

      All of these transfers are involuntary in nature.

History:
Created by Proposal 1601, Jun. 19 1995

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

Non-Judgement CFJ 845 (Evidence deleted):


This CFJ hinges on the meaning of the sentence in Rule 1472:

      Class I and Class II transfers take place at the time they are
      required to take place.

But, many Class I and Class II transfers have no time at which they
are explicitly required.  In such cases, what does this sentence
mean?

I will use, as an example, the fee for disowning a Proposal imposed
by Rule 1451, due to the obvious practical importance of this case.
But it should be noted that the statement does not mention this
particular case; and even though I reference Rule 1451, the same
argument applies to all such transfers.

Rule 1451 states that a Player disowning a Proposal loses 5 points,
but specifies no time at which this takes place.

CFJ 721 and 722 are of some interest here.  They both address similar
statements, regarding the alleged violation by then-Registrar KoJen
in announcing the vacancy in a few Offices.  Both Judges, Vanyel
and Down with 815!, ruled that because Rule 790 imposed no time
limit on the Registrar's duty, he could not be said to have violated
Rule 790.

However, in spite of the fact that a Registrar could not be convicted
of violating that part of 790, and that that part of 790 is therefore
unenforceable, the _de jure_ requirement for the Registrar to
announce the vacancy remains.

Morendil may well be right in stating that there is no time at
which the penalty for disowning to take place.  *However*, there
is no justification for saying that the transfer therefore does
not take place.  This is, plain and simple, a _non sequitur_.
There is no logic to his statement that because that sentence
in 1472 does not specify a time at which the transfer takes place,
it does not take place at all.  I find that this sentence in Rule
1367 is also interesting:

      There shall exist a subset of the Patent Titles known as
      Degrees.

Not relevant, you say?  Au contraire!  Like the sentence in question
in Rule 1472, it *also* does not specify a time at which the
disowning penalty takes place.  In fact, there are several thousand
such sentences in the Ruleset.  Yet no one claims that *these* imply
the transfer does not take place.  Why should the sentence in
Rule 1472 be any different?  It is not.

Rule 1472 is, at worst, silent on the time at which the disowning
penalty takes place.  But this in no way means that the penalty
does not take place at all!  There are numerous other Rules
which also are silent on the time at which the disowning penalty
takes place.

In fact, no Rule requires the disowning penalty to take place
at any given time.  Such rules--those that require point changes
without specifying the time at which those changes take place--
go all the way to the beginning of Agora.  In fact, in the
initial Ruleset, 5 types of point changes are specified.  For
only one of these is the time of the point change specified.
Yet, somehow, these changes took place nonetheless--at the time
at which the requirement of them taking place started.  Thus,
there are 2 1/2 years of Game Custom supporting the interpretation
that, when the Rules are silent on the time at which a currency
transfer takes place, it takes place when the requirement
of that transfer starts.  This non-Judgement supports that
interpretation as well, as I choose to use the same criteria
that actual Judges are required to apply: when the Rules are
silent, Game Custom, the Spirit of the Game, and past Judgements
should be considered.