From email@example.com Tue Jan 30 06:23:29 1996 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [188.8.131.52]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id GAA25800 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; 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 [184.108.40.206]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA26464 for <email@example.com>; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 03:46:02 -0800 Message-Id: <199601301146.DAA26464@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing3.wing.rug.nl (220.127.116.11/16.2) id AA09129; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 12:44:58 +0100 From: Andre Engels <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: OFF: CJF 846: Concurring Opinion To: email@example.com Date: Tue, 30 Jan 96 12:44:58 MET Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.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." firstname.lastname@example.org | -- 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.