From owner-nomic-official@teleport.com  Wed Mar  6 09:41:58 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 JAA27402 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 09:41:57 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id HAA28470; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 07:33:14 -0800
Received: by desiree.teleport.com (bulk_mailer v1.3); Wed, 6 Mar 1996 07:33:12 -0800
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id HAA28432 for nomic-official-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 07:33:11 -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 HAA28412 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 07:33:05 -0800
Received: from siesta (siesta+.triple-i.com [192.94.150.7]) by torii.triple-i.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id HAA21138 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 07:32:32 -0800
Received: from pak by siesta (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA21088; Wed, 6 Mar 96 07:32:31 PST
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 96 07:32:31 PST
From: jlc@triple-i.com (Jeff Caruso)
Message-Id: <9603061532.AA21088@siesta>
Received: by pak (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA00328; Wed, 6 Mar 96 07:32:31 PST
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Subject: OFF: Assignment of Appeal of CFJ 860:  favor, elJefe, and Steve
Cc: jlc@triple-i.com
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

======================================================================
              ASSIGNMENT OF APPEAL: INJUNCTION IN CFJ 860

  ""Where the Rules call for a Player to be nominated to perform, or not 
    perform, any action or duty, it is sufficient to nominate an Officer 
    to perform that action, the current holder of that Office and eir 
    successor(s) then being responsible for the action or duty"

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

Board of Appeals:            Decision:
    favor                    [       ]
    elJefe                   [       ]
    Steve                    [       ]

Under consideration:    whether the Injunction, that Rule 1590 be
    annotated to the effect of the Statement, had been made in accorance
    with the Rules.

Decision on the Injunction:  [       ]

Judge:          Doug
Judgement:      TRUE

Caller:         Greycell
Barred:         
On Hold:        Blob     

Eligible:       Andre, Chuck, Coren, dcuman, Doug, elJefe, favor, 
                Gecko, Ghost, Jtael, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, 
                Morendil, Murphy, Steve, Swann, Vanyel, Zefram

Requested Injunction:
  that Rule 1590 be annotated to this effect.

Note:  The Judgement of this CFJ is not under appeal, and is 
  official judgement for the time being.  The Justices are to 
  consider only the question of whether the Injunction was legal.

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

History:
  Called by Greycell, Tue, 5 Mar 1996 08:05:28 +-1000
  Assigned to Doug, Mon, 4 Mar 96 19:16:37 PST
  Judged TRUE by Doug, Tue, 05 Mar 1996 18:19:22 -0500
  Injunction appealed by Kelly, Tue, 5 Mar 96 18:33:34 EST5
  Injunction appealed by Chuck, Wed, 6 Mar 1996 01:03:37 -0600 (CST)
  Assigned to favor as Justice, as of this message
  Assigned to elJefe as Justice, as of this message
  Assigned to Steve as Justice, as of this message

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

Argument
--------
Rule 1590/0 (Maintainer of SLC's) requires a Player to be specified to maintain
a record of the content of a SLC.

Common sense dictates that this assignment should be synonymous with
assigniong the task to a specified Officer.

Since there are procedures within the Rules for ensuring that (as near as
dammit) any Officer is always a Player, this Judgement should hold.

======================================================================
Decision of Judge Doug:  TRUE

        I Judge that the statement is TRUE and grant the request for Injunction.
H. Rulekeepor, please make the requested annotation. 

        Since an Officer is always a particular Player (by 1006(5)), 
specifying an 
Officer satisfies 1590's requirement to specify a Player.  I would like to 
caution the Players that specifying an Officer is sufficient, but _not_ 
necessary, to specify a Player.  (The two concepts are _not_ synonymous.)

        I attach Rule 1590(0) and 1006(5) below as Evidence:
___________

Rule 1590/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Maintainer of SLCs

      For a SLC to be legally authorized, the Rules must specify a
      Player who is required to maintain a record of the content of
      that SLC; this Player is known as the Maintainer of that SLC.

      The Maintainer of a given SLC must provide a copy of it to any
      other Player who requests it, as soon as possible after the
      request is made.  E must also provide an updated copy of the SLC
      to all Players within its Jurisdiction as soon as possible after
      the SLC changes for any reason..

History:
Created by Proposal 2490, Feb. 16 1996

___________
Rule 1006/5 (Mutable, MI=1)
Defaults for Officers

      An Office is a position of authority or responsibility
      established by the Rules and held by a Player, who is called an
      Officer.  At any time, for each Office there shall be exactly
      one Officer who holds it.

      A position of responsibility or authority is only an Office if
      the Rules specifically designate it as such.  An Office only
      exists as long as there is a Rule in force which specifies that
      it exists.  If the Rule or Rules which mandated the existence of
      an Office are changed such that they no longer do so, that
      Office ceases to exist.

      A given Office has whatever duties, responsibilities, and
      privileges that the Rules assign to it.

History:
Created by Proposal 386, Aug. 16 1993
Amended by Proposal 733, Nov. 24 1993
Amended by Proposal 881, date unknown
Amended by Rule 750, date unknown
Amended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994
Amended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994
Amended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995
Amended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995
Amended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996

_____________________
Oops, I forgot.... you may all sit down now. :)
This Court is adjourned.....
__________________________________________
Doug Chatham                       Email:   dchatham@utk.edu
Web page #1: http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~chatham/
Web page #2: http://www.math.utk.edu/~rchatham/