From owner-nomic-official@teleport.com  Tue Jan 30 09:39:16 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 JAA27662 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 09:39:14 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id GAA06166; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 06:40:29 -0800
Received: by desiree.teleport.com (bulk_mailer v1.3); Tue, 30 Jan 1996 06:40:28 -0800
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id GAA06154 for nomic-official-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 06:40:28 -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 GAA06115 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 06:40:23 -0800
Message-Id: <199601301440.GAA06115@desiree.teleport.com>
Received: by wing3.wing.rug.nl
	(1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA11020; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 15:39:21 +0100
From: Andre Engels <csg419@wing.rug.nl>
Subject: OFF: CFJ 854 Judgement repost
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 96 15:39:21 MET
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

Steve notified me that I hadn't added Kelly's Reasoning to this Judgement.
So, here it is, in repost:

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

======================================================================
			JUDGEMENT CFJ 854

" The Rules should be interpreted such that, if the transfers mentioned
  in R1451 are Class I transfers, then Morendil deregistered on Sun, 21
  Jan 1996 17:58:22 +0100."

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

Judge:		Kelly
Judgement:	TRUE

Eligible:	Andre, elJefe, favor, Jtael, Kelly, KoJen, Murphy, 
		Vanyel, Vlad, Wes
		(S) Chuck

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

Effects:	Kelly gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement

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

History:
  Called by Steve, 29 January 1996, 12:17 +1100 (EST)
  Assigned to Kelly, 29 January 1996, 12:53 MET
  Judged TRUE by Kelly, 29 January 1996, 14:50 EST5

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

Reasons and Arguments:

Morendil's message, date-stamped Sun, 21 Jan 1996 17:58:22 +0100, 
appears in full in the Evidence section. Here are the relevant excerpts:

>From: "Laurent Bossavit" <morendil@micronet.fr>
>To: nomic-business@teleport.com
>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 17:58:22 +0100
>
>I am carrying out the following actions if and only if the Transfers 
>mentioned in Rule 1451 are Class I Transfers.
>
<snip>
>
>I find that the penalty of 1000 Points for disowning my Xmas 
>Proposals, given that it rests on extremely dubious grounds, is
>worse than deregistration; as a consequence, I hereby announce
>that I do deregister rather than incur it.

It is not my purpose here to argue that the transfers in R1451
are Class I transfers. That is or should be the subject of other
proceedings. Here we need only concern ourselves with what follows
if they are. A number of issues now arise.

Firstly there is the conditional nature of the deregistration.
I do not think I need argue that conditional registration is
both possible and permissible. In a game as complex as this one,
it is impossible to know with certainty the totality of the true
game state at any given time, and this is especially true during
times of dispute. Hence, a long tradition exists of making moves
conditional upon the state of the game being a certain way, or 
upon a Rule being interpreted a certain way (which often amounts
to the same thing). As long as the truth-value of the condition
is easily verifiable, there is no problem.

However, it is worth drawing attention to exactly what condition
Morendil imposed upon his deregistration, to wit: that the transfers
mentioned in Rule 1451 are Class I transfers. No other condition
was imposed. Specifically, Morendil did *not* make his deregistration
conditional upon any particular interpretation of Rule 113. I submit
that his message has the form: "If Condition C is true, I hereby
announce that I do deregister."

Next there is the more difficult matter of R113 itself. Here is
the text of that Rule:

Rule 113/1 (Semimutable, MI=3)
Players May Always Forfeit

      A Player may always deregister from the Game rather than
      continue to play or incur a Game penalty.  No penalty worse
      than deregistration, in the judgment of the Player to incur 
      it, may be imposed.

It has been argued, although not by Morendil, that his message
results in his being deregistered on Dec 22 in order to avoid a
penalty imposed on him by R1451. However, a number of persuasive
arguments have since been raised against this view.

Firstly there is Morendil's own avowal that, on Dec 22, he did
*not* judge the penalties imposed by R1451 to be worse than
deregistration. Rather, Morendil claims that this was a view he
came to hold later. (See part 2 of the Evidence attached.) Favor has
persuasively argued that, this being the case, the imposition of the
penalty does not contravene R113, since it did not constitute the
imposition of a penalty which, at the time, the Player incurring it
judged to be worse than deregistration. Since the penalty was imposed
without contravening R113, there are no grounds for claiming that
R113 requires Morendil to have been deregistered on Dec 22 in order to
avoid it.

Secondly, there are a number of very powerful arguments for the
more general proposition that Rule 113 does not guarantee the right
to avoid penalties already incurred by deregistering, whether
retroactively or by some other means. This is also the subject of
other proceedings, so I shall be brief. Judge Michael, in his
Judgement of CFJ 763, ruled that the second sentence of R113
is not independent of the first sentence, but is rather an
amplification or consequence of it. This focusses our attention
on the first sentence, where we find that "a Player may always
deregister from the game rather than continue to play or incur
a game penalty". Wes has pointed out the choice which this sentence
implicitly offers to Players, depending on their circumstances:
one may deregister rather than incur a game penalty, or one may
deregister rather than continue to play. It is sensible to read the
second option as being offered in the case that the first option is
unavailable because the penalty has already been incurred. That is,
Rule 113 says in effect: if you are about to incur a penalty then you
may deregister in order to avoid it; if it is too late and the
penalty has already been incurred, then you may deregister rather
than continue to play on in an unpalatable game state. However, it
does not afford you the opportunity to deregister and thereby avoid
penalties already incurred.

Finally, it is worth examining R1043:

Rule 1043/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
Deregistration

      A Voter may deregister from Agora by sending a message to the
      Public Forum announcing eir deregistration. A Voter who
      deregisters in this fashion ceases to be a Player effective at
      the time date-stamped on that message, and e may not reregister
      as a Player until a new Game has begun.

Morendil's message clearly announces his deregistration ("I hereby
do deregister") conditional upon R1451 being interpreted in a certain
way. The Statement alleges nothing more than that if the condition
is fulfilled, then the deregistration does occur, at the time
date-stamped on the deregistration message. This course of events
is required by R1043. Morendil has tried to argue that he made his
deregistration conditional upon his being able to avoid the penalties
he incurred on Dec 22 by doing so, ie conditional upon R113 being
interpreted in a certain way. But this is not supported by the text
of his message. It is clear that Morendil intended to avoid those
penalties by deregistering ("I hereby do deregister rather than 
incur [the penalties]") but he did not make his doing so a condition.
In fact, Morendil's message is explicit that the interpretation of
R1451 is both the necessary and sufficient condition for his
deregistration, for he states: "I am carrying out the following
actions *if and only if* the Transfers mentioned in Rule 1451 are
Class I Transfers." Hence, if the transfers in R1451 are Class I,
Morendil is deregistered as of the date of that message. This
is what the Statement alleges.

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

Reasoning & Arguments Judge:

In the matter of CFJ 854, I hereby accept appointment as Judge and
find that the Statement is TRUE.

First of all, the Statement is a conditional, and therefore, should
the antecedent be false, the statement itself is vacuously true.  So I
shall proceed under the stipulation that the transfers mandated by
Rule 1451 are Class I, without regard to whether this is actually the
case.

Morendil's message of January 21st (Caller's Exhibit 1) contains two
statements of pertinence to this matter.  First, Morendil disclaims
the entire message with the claim that the actions described later on
take place if and only if "the Transfers mentioned in Rule 1451 are
Class I Transfers".  since this has been stipulated to for the
purposes of Judging this Statement, this condition is satisifed.

The other statement of relevance is within the ultimate paragraph of
the message (which is itself a single sentence).  The first conjunct
of this sentence declares that Morendil believes that some penalty is
a penalty worse than deregistration; the second declares that Morendil
is deregistering.  Morendil chooses a semicolon and the coordinating
phrase "as a consequence" to connect these two conjuncts.  I believe
Morendil is seeking to establish a causal relation between the two by
eir choice of words; yet, e states that "I do deregister" instead of
"I am deregistered", clearly indicating that eir action is of eir own
volition.  

I therefore find the following facts to exist:  
  * that Morendil did, upon January 21st, believe that being assessed
    a 1000 Point penalty for disowning 200 Proposals is, in eir
    opinion, a penalty worse than deregistration; and
  * that Morendil did in fact attempt to deregister on January 21st.

I also find that, as a matter of law, that there is no causal
connection between these two facts.  Morendil's deregistration is not
caused--as a matter of law--by eir belief.  I have little doubt that
Morendil chose to deregister as a consequence of eir belief, but the
decision to deregister remains with Morendil, so any causation that
may exist is beyond the Rules.  Rule 113 does not _require_ a Player
to deregister to avoid a penalty worse than deregistration; it merely
_permits_ a Player to do so.  The deregistration itself must proceed
under other Rules.  What Rule 113 does is prohibit other Rules from
prohibiting deregistration; it does not itself provide for the
deregistration.

Given that Rule 113 does not establish a legal causation between the
finding of such a belief and the act of deregistration, Morendil's
attempt to deregister should be interpreted as any other such attempt.
Rule 1043 clearly specifies that a Player who posts that e is
deregistering ceases to be a Player "at the time date-stamped on that
message".  It is my finding of fact that Morendil's message was
date-stamped "Sun, 21 Jan 1996 17:58:22 +0100", and I have no reason
to believe that this stamp is substantially in error.

It is therefore my finding that Morendil successfully deregistered as
a Player at the time mentioned above.  This is precisely the
consequent of the Statement of this CFJ.  Therefore, the Statement is
TRUE under the stipulation given above, and vacuously TRUE otherwise.

The matter of Morendil's belief as to the acceptability of the penalty
on December 22nd, or at any other time, is irrelevant.   

I humbly request that the Rulekeepor insert an informal annotation in
the Published Ruleset to the effect that "The mere belief that a
penalty is worse than deregistration is not sufficient to cause
deregistration."

Respectfully submitted on this 29th day of January, 1996,

Kelly Martin
Judge
--
kelly martin                                 <kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us>

  When Elvis Presley died in 1977, there were 37 Elvis impersonators in the
 world.  Today there are 48,000.  If the current trend continues, by the year
 2010, one of every three people in the world will be an Elvis impersonator.
			      -- Michael Legault





======================================================================
Evidence:

1. Morendil's deregistration message
2. Morendil's claim concerning his judgement about penalties
3. Rule 113
4. Rule 1043


----- 1. Morendil's deregistration message

>From: "Laurent Bossavit" <morendil@micronet.fr>
>To: nomic-business@teleport.com
>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 17:58:22 +0100
>Subject: BUS: Rule 113 insurance
>Priority: normal
>X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.20)
>Sender: owner-nomic-business@teleport.com
>Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
>
>I am carrying out the following actions if and only if the Transfers 
>mentioned in Rule 1451 are Class I Transfers.
>
>I hereby convert all my Points to Marks.
>I hereby transfer all other Currencies in my possession to the 
>Treasury of the Misanthropist's Group.
>
>I hereby relinquish the Offices of Banker, Rulekeepor, Ambassador 
>to Chuck, if e is willing, or failing that, to Swann, if e is willing;
>or failing that to favor, if e is willing.
>
>I hereby voluntarily give up Speakership and Call for Volunteers to 
>fill the position of Speaker-Elect.
>
>I find that the penalty of 1000 Points for disowning my Xmas 
>Proposals, given that it rests on extremely dubious grounds, is
>worse than deregistration; as a consequence, I hereby announce
>that I do deregister rather than incur it.
>
>-*-*-*-*-*-
> Morendil
>

----- 2. Morendil's claim concerning his judgement about penalties

>From: "Laurent Bossavit" <morendil@micronet.fr>
>To: nomic-business@teleport.com
>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 14:18:03 +0100
>Subject: BUS: My opinion on 1000 Points, then and now
>Priority: normal
>X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23)
>Sender: owner-nomic-business@teleport.com
>Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
>
>Chuck sez:
>
>> My interpretation is that the message of Jan. 21 does not *cause*
>> his deregistration on Dec. 22; it merely *announces* his deregistration
>> on Dec. 22.  So it seems I was in error in saying that his
>> deregistration was retroactive.  After all, presumably he believed,
>> even on Dec. 22, that losing 1000 points was a penalty worse than
>> deregistration; he did not mention this at the time, because he
>> did not believe he would lose 1000 points.
>
>If it is any help, I can state without even a hint of uncertainty 
>that I did not consider, on or about the date of Dec. 22, a penalty 
>of 1000 Points to be worse than deregistration. In fact, at that date 
>I considered deregistration to be worse than any penalty that could 
>possibly be enforced under the Ruleset of that time, since I was 
>enjoying the game very much, thank you, and had no intention to 
>deregister, even for tactical reasons.
>
>Of course, Rule 113 gives me a final say in whether I did or not 
>judge that penalty to be worse than deregistration at the time, or 
>at this time, since it very explicitly says "no penalty worse than 
>deregistration, *in the judgement of the Player to incur it*, may be 
>imposed". (My emphasis).
>
>I will accept no other Player's determination of what I judged, or 
>judge, to be a fate worse than death - excuse me, a penalty worse 
>than deregistration.
>
>- ---*-*-*---
> Morendil

----- 3. Rule 113

Rule 113/1 (Semimutable, MI=3)
Players May Always Forfeit

      A Player may always deregister from the Game rather than
      continue to play or incur a Game penalty.  No penalty worse
      than deregistration, in the judgment of the Player to incur 
      it, may be imposed.

CFJ 826, Nov. 15 1995: Rule 113 should be interpreted such that, even
if a Player considers a penalty to be worse than deregistration, e is
still subject to it unless e actually deregisters or is deregistered.
Relevant Rules: 113

History:
Initial Immutable Rule 113, Jun. 30 1993
Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1290, Oct. 27 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 1304, Nov. 4 1994

----- 4. Rule 1043

Rule 1043/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
Deregistration

      A Voter may deregister from Agora by sending a message to the
      Public Forum announcing eir deregistration. A Voter who
      deregisters in this fashion ceases to be a Player effective at
      the time date-stamped on that message, and e may not reregister
      as a Player until a new Game has begun.

      Other Rules may define other conditions under which Voters may
      be deregistered.

History:
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1305, Nov. 4 1994


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 --