From owner-nomic-official@teleport.com  Thu Feb 29 15:32:58 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 PAA27145 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 15:32:55 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA29153; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 13:28:59 -0800
Received: by desiree.teleport.com (bulk_mailer v1.3); Thu, 29 Feb 1996 13:28:57 -0800
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id NAA29125 for nomic-official-outgoing; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 13:28:56 -0800
Received: from torii.triple-i.com (torii.triple-i.com [192.94.150.1]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA28964 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 13:28:34 -0800
Received: from siesta ([192.94.150.7]) by torii.triple-i.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id GAA11338 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 06:39:22 -0800
Received: from pak by siesta (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA14165; Thu, 29 Feb 96 06:38:39 PST
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 96 06:38:39 PST
From: jlc@triple-i.com (Jeff Caruso)
Message-Id: <9602291438.AA14165@siesta>
Received: by pak (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA09428; Thu, 29 Feb 96 06:38:38 PST
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Subject: OFF: Judgement of CFJ 850:  FALSE
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

			JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 850

"The Transfers mandated by Rule 1451 are either Class III or illegal"

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

Judge:		Zefram (defaulted)
		Michael (defaulted)
		Gecko

Judgement:	FALSE

Caller:		Morendil
Barred:		Kelly, Steve, Swann
On Hold:	Blob

Eligible:	Andre, Chuck, Coren, dcuman, Doug, elJefe, favor, 
		Gecko, Ghost, Greycell, Jtael, KoJen, Murphy, Vanyel

Judge Gecko receives a judicial salary which will
be reported after the end of the Nomic Week.

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

History:
  Called by Morendil, 23 January 1996, 15:11 +0100
  Assigned to Zefram, 2 February 1996, timestamp lost
  Defaulted by Zefram, 9 February 1996
  Assigned to Michael, 19 February 1996, 13:29 MET
  Defaulted by Michael, 26 February 1996, 07:29 EST
  Assigned to Gecko, 28 Feb 96 06:05:56 PST
  Judged FALSE by Gecko, Wed, 28 Feb 1996 19:14:24 -0800 (PST)

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

Arguments :

First off, I should note that part of this argument rests on the 
possibility that Rule 1479 is self-contradictory, so it seems 
necessary to recall Rule 101 at this point :

Rule 101/0 (Semimutable, MI=3)
Obey the Rules

      All Players must always abide by all the Rules then in effect,
      in the form in which they are then in effect.  The Rules in the
      Initial Set are in effect at the beginning of the first game.

>From this it should be obvious that our treatment of an inconsistent 
Rule may not be arbitrary. It does not seem legal, for instance, to 
ignore just part of a Rule; this would be tantamount to claiming that 
a Rule can have effect in a different form than "the form in which 
[it is] in effect". Either an inconsistent Rule is without legal 
force, or it must be interpreted so that all of its requirements are 
to be met.

That said, let us consider the facts of the matter.

Rule 1451 says that a Player disowning eir Proposal loses a 5-Point 
fee (without specifying a time for this event to occur).

Rule 1479 says that when a Player loses Points, e is required to 
initiate a transfer of this amount of Points from eir Treasury to
the Bank.. Unfortunately, it also states that this transfer, among
the others that it specifies, is involuntary.

Obviously, one cannot be "required" to effect an action "involuntarily", 
on the face of it. Apparently, Rule 1479 is therefore inconsistent in 
this respect, and from the above argument it would seem that it is 
therefore without legal force.

However, since the conclusion that an inconsistent Rule is such a 
distasteful one, we might want to dig into the matter further, and 
consider what "action" is required of a Player under 1479, namely, to 
initiate a Transfer.

Rule 1472 states that "Every transfer has an initiator, which is the
Entity which causes the transfer to take place.". In view of this, it 
does not seem unreasonable to claim that to initiate a transfer is to 
cause it to take place. Being "the Entity which causes a transfer to 
take place" can hardly be termed an _action_, and the semantic 
problem, IMO, disappears.

The last relevant Rule is therefore Rule 1472, which states that when 
a Rule requires a Player to initiate a transfer, that transfer is of 
Class III.

If this is not sufficient, however, to avoid the conclusion that 1479 
is irreparably inconsistent, and as such cannot be taken into 
consideration at all, there remains only the statement in Rule 1451 
that a Player "loses" eir fee of 5 Points.

In this case, however, such a transfer is made illegal by Rule 1511, 
which states that Points may only go to a Player from the Bank or 
from a Player to the Bank. Thus these "lost" Points may only be 
destroyed, *within* the Player's Treasury.

However, Rule 1467 states that the Mintor of a Currency (in the case 
of Points, the Mint) is the Entity authorized to create or destroy 
units of a Currency. Rule 1470 states that "the Mint may never 
transfer Currencies from it Treasury, or create or destroy any 
Currencies of which it is the Mintor, except as *specifically* 
authorized to do so in the Rules". Lastly, Rule 1011 states that 
Nomic Entities may not be changed by any action other than
those specified in the Rules.

Conclusion : the Points "lost" under Rule 1451 can neither be 
transferred or destroyed, and so the loss itself is illegal.

---*-*-*---
 Morendil

======================================================================
Decision of Judge Gecko:  FALSE

We hereby return a Judgement of FALSE with the following Arguments: 

ARGUMENTS: 

     "A Player may Disown eir own Proposal if... by sending a statement 
     Disowning it to the Public Forum... The Player so Disowning loses a 
     flat fee of five Points, reported by the Assessor..."  [Rule 1451] 

This quite clearly specifies that a transfer is to take place, but is it
a legal transfer? 

     "It shall be legal to transfer Currencies between Treasuries, provided
     this is done in accordance with the Rules. Every transfer... shall be
     transfered from Exactly one Treasury into exactly one other Treasury."
     [Rule 1472] 

This quite clearly specifies that a transfer must involve two
Treasuries, while only one is specified in Rule 1451, which results in
Rule 1451 attempting to perform an illegal transfer. However, another
Rule addresses the issue which resolves the problem: 

     "Whenever a Rule calls for a Player to lose a number of Points without
     specifying where these Points shall be transfered 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 by nature." 
     [Rule 1479] 

Thus, the second Treasury involved is the Bank, making the transfer
legal according to the quoted clause in Rule 1472. Morendil claims that
Rule 1479 is self-contradictory in eir Arguments: 

> Rule 1479 says that when a Player loses Points, e is required to 
> initiate a transfer of this amount of Points from eir Treasury to
> the Bank.. Unfortunately, it also states that this transfer, among
> the others that it specifies, is involuntary.
> 
> Obviously, one cannot be "required" to effect an action "involuntarily", 
> on the face of it. Apparently, Rule 1479 is therefore inconsistent in 
> this respect, and from the above argument it would seem that it is 
> therefore without legal force.

However, Morendil seems to have mis-read the Rule in question. E claims
that Rule 1479 requires a Player to "initiate" a transfer, which is not
the case. It merely states that a Player "shall be required to transfer"
Points to the Bank. 

Rule 1472 states "It shall be legal to transfer Currencies..." making it
legal to transfer Currencies. It goes on to state "Every transfer has an
initiator, which is the Enitity which causes the transfer to take
place." That phrase does *not* define who actually "performs" the
transfer, but only defines the "initiator" as the Entity who creates the
requirement that the Currency be transfered. With "initiator" having
such a specific, defined meaning, it was incorrect of Morendil to insert
that word into the paraphrased text of Rule 1479 since it does not
necessarily apply. 

In actuality, Rule 1479 states that if a Player "loses" Points, e
involuntarily transfers those Points to the Bank, as allowed by Rule
1472. The initiator of the transfer would actually be Rule 1479 since it
is the Entity responsible for creating the requirement to transfer said
Points. 

     "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." 
     [Rule 1472] 

     "A transfer which is not required to take place, and which is instead a
     consequence of a Player's action, is initiated by that Player, and is
     called a Class III transfer." [Rule 1472]

The transfer caused by Disowning a Proposal is indeed the end result of
an action performed by a Player, but only indirectly. It is explicitly
and directly required to take place by Rule 1479 which states that the
Player in question is required to transfer the Points. 

The transfer is not allowed to be a Class III transfer due to the fact
that the phrase "A trasnfer which is not required to take place" can
be read to mean "A transfer which is not a Class I transfer," otherwise
Rule 1472 would be considered to be self-contradictory. 


In conclusion, Rule 1479 is not contradictory due to the fact that Rule
1479 does not claim the Player as the initiator of the transfer, but is
the initiator of the transfer itself. Therefore, Rule 1479 successfully
requires the transfer Points due to Disowning Proposals, and thus the
transfer (since it is required by a Rule) is a Class I transfer.

The Assessor is therefore required to report (and thus presumably
detect them, although that is another story) the transfer and it shall
take place at the time it is required, i.e., at the time the Player
Disowns the Proposals and thus incurs the penalty. 


---
Player Gecko                     
gecko@magika.com                http//www.teleport.com/~magika/wespage.html