From owner-nomic-official@teleport.com  Sun May  5 21:48:01 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 VAA04829 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Sun, 5 May 1996 21:47:58 -0500
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA08373; Sun, 5 May 1996 19:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by desiree.teleport.com (bulk_mailer v1.3); Sun, 5 May 1996 19:14:31 -0700
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA08351 for nomic-official-outgoing; Sun, 5 May 1996 19:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from torii.triple-i.com (torii.triple-i.com [192.94.150.1]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA08320 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Sun, 5 May 1996 19:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Camex.COM (Camex.COM [134.54.1.1]) by torii.triple-i.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA04377 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Sun, 5 May 1996 19:13:53 -0700
Received: from zeus.Camex.COM by Camex.COM (4.1/SMI-4.2)
	id AA12763; Sun, 5 May 96 22:15:16 EDT
Received: by zeus.Camex.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id WAA02893; Sun, 5 May 1996 22:15:05 -0400
Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 22:15:05 -0400
From: jlc@triple-i.com (Jeff Caruso)
Message-Id: <199605060215.WAA02893@zeus.Camex.COM>
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Subject: OFF: Judgement of CFJ 870:  FALSE
Cc: jlc@Camex.COM
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

======================================================================
                      JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 870

  With the exception of Player Morendil, all currently registered
  Players who were Players on Apr. 20 have committed one (and
  possibly more) Infraction of the sort described in Rule 1599, in not
  reporting to the Banker transfers of Marks mandated by the
  Regulations of the Contest known as Morendil's Feline Orphanage
  within a period of seven days as required by Rule 1534 and the
  aforementioned Regulations.

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

Judge:          Chuck
Judgement:      FALSE

Caller:         Morendil
Barred:         
On Hold:        Swann

Eligible:       Andre, Chuck, elJefe, favor, Jtael, Kelly,
                Michael, Murphy, Narcisse, Oerjan, Steve, Vanyel, Zefram

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

History:
  Called by Morendil, Sat, 27 Apr 1996 22:39:48 +0100
  Assigned to Chuck, Mon, 29 Apr 96 09:50:33 EDT
  Judged FALSE by Chuck, Sun, 5 May 1996 16:14:04 -0500 (CDT)

======================================================================
Arguments : Rule 1534 explicitly defers to a Compact in specifying
the Player who is required to detect transfers required by that
Compact. MFO has required such transfers and assigned to each of the 
set of Players defined above the D&R duty. These transfers have 
occurred more than seven days ago.

Evidence :

Rule 1534
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1534/3 (Mutable, MI=1)
Compacts Can Require Some Currency Transfers

      An Organization's Compact is empowered to initiate Currency
      transfers, subject to the restriction that any such transfer
      must originate from either the Treasury of a Player within the
      Compact's Jurisdiction, or from the Treasury of the Organization
      itself.

      Unless the Compact specifies otherwise, such transfers shall be
      detected and reported by the Organization's Executor, or, if it
      has no Executor, its Administrator.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

New Regulations of MFO
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From:             "Laurent Bossavit" <morendil@micronet.fr>
To:               morendil@micronet.fr
Date sent:        Sat, 20 Apr 1996 18:30:43 +0100
Subject:          Morendil's Feline Orphanage - New Regs
Priority:         normal

The Regulations of the Feline Orphanage are now as follows :

1) Any willing Player may become the Contestmaster in the event
that the former Contestmaster deregisters. Player Morendil shall
become Contestmaster at any time upon request in the event that e ever
ceases to be so.

2) The Entry Fee for this Contest shall be 0 Marks.

3) Other Players may become Contestants of this Contest, also known as
Donators, by transferring to the Contest Fund, in addition to the
Entry Fee, a donation of one Mark or one Cat Food, subject to approval
by the Contestmaster. The Contestmaster may at any time expel a
Donator for conduct unworthy of a Cat-respecting Player.

4) These Regulations may be changed at any time by the consent of a
two-thirds majority of the Donators, or by the Contestmaster if there
are no Donators. The Contestmaster shall have sole authority to
conduct any deliberations and votes on proposed changes to the
Regulations.

5) The Currencies in the Contest Fund shall be at the disposal of the
Contestmaster to spend as e sees fit to further the goals of the
Contest, to wit :

   * provide a warm, caring environment for Cats bereft of their 
      Owners,
   * disseminate to Cat-Owning Players any information relevant to 
      the proper care and feeding of Cats,
   * generally promote discussion of Cats in the Agoran Community.

In particular, any Donator shall be authorized to require the
transfer of one Cat Food from the Fund to eir own Treasury, provided
this does not reduce the Fund's Cat Foods holdings to below two.  No
more than one such transfer shall be possible in any given Week, and
only if the requesting Player owns a Cat and is not currently the
Executor of any Entity owning a Treasury which contains at least one
Cat Food.

To replenish the Fund, the Contestmaster may at any time call for a
Collection. Donators who fail to transfer one Mark, or one Cat Food,
to the Fund within four days of the announcement of the Collection
shall no longer be authorized to draw on the Fund's Currencies.

** The "Immaculate" Regulation **

At the time this Regulation is created, one Mark is transferred from
Player Morendil to the Fund, which the Speaker at that time shall
detect and report.

Whenever a Player Goes Completely Blotto, that Player shall
detect and report the following transfers, which happen at
the time that Player Goes Completely Blotto : one Mark is
transferred from the Fund to the Contestmaster, immediately
after which one Mark is transferred from the Contestmaster
to the Fund. That Player is thereafter Completely Blotto
until one of the following happens :
 * that Player spends Points to erase all eir Blots;
 * the Contestmaster decides so.

If at any time and for any reason, any Player other than the
Contestmaster is not Completely Blotto, then that Player shall 
immediately Go Completely Blotto. The Contestmaster shall never
Go Completely Blotto, any part of this or any other SLC 
notwithstanding.

-[Morendil]-
Please stand by for total destruction of your planet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-[Morendil]-
Oh, Grep ! You haven't been pattern-matching _again_ ?



======================================================================
Decision of Judge Chuck:  FALSE

First, let me state that I have carefully followed the
discussion of this CFJ in n-d, and I have carefully
considered the arguments presented there.  The debate has
also addressed some tangential issues, such as whether Morendil
violated TIA; I do not address those here, as they are not
directly relevant to this CFJ.

There are three issues that need to be addressed.  First,
can a Contest require Players not in its Jurisdiction to
detect and report (D&R) transfers?

At first it appears that it cannot.  Rule 1534 says

      Unless the Compact specifies otherwise, such transfers shall be
      detected and reported by the Organization's Executor, or, if it
      has no Executor, its Administrator.

It seems, at first, that this says merely what happens if the
Compact does not specify someone to D&R, and is silent on
what happens if the compact does specify someone to D&R.
Thus, Rule 1534 does not grant a Compact any authority to
require anyone--within the Compact's Jurisdiction or not--to
D&R.  It is only 1591 which grants a Compact the authority to
require those within its Jurisdiction to D&R.

Morendil raises several objections to this argument, each of which
I will consider in turn.

First, he argues, 1534 should be parsed not as "Unless (Compact
specifies otherwise) then (Executor D&R)" but rather "(Unless
Compact specifies otherwise then Executor) D&R."  I reject this
argument on the grounds that this is an unnatural reading of that
sentence.  If the sentence meant the latter, then it would have to
read something like "Unless the Compact specifies *someone else*..."
As it is, the first parsing is the only natural one.

Second, he cites Rule 1614 as analogous:

      Otherwise, the name of an Organization cany only be changed as
      specified by its Compact, or, in lieu of any specific procedure
      in its Compact, with the unanimous consent of all the Players
      within its Compact's Jurisdiction.  The Administrator of an
      Organization shall notify the Notary as soon as possible after
      the Organization's name is changed.

However, this is not analogous.  This does not even use the
"unless" construction.  Furthermore, it states "... the
name of an Organization cany [sic] only be changed..."
Note that this not only prevents the name of an Organization
from being changed in other ways, but it specifically
that its name is changed as specified by its Compact.  So this
situation is not analogous to that of 1534.

Third, he cites Rule 1612 as analogous:

      Unless otherwise specified in the Compact, a Compact can be
      changed by the unanimous consent of all the Players within its
      Jurisdiction.  The Administrator of an Organization is the
      Maintainer of the Organization's Compact.  

Morendil argues, if we read this in the same way that we are
proposing to read 1534, that Rule 1612 is entirely silent on
how a Compact may be changed if the method is specified in the
Compact; in other words, Rule 1612 does not grant a Compact 
authority to modify itself.  But by Morendil's own admission,
Rule 1589 *does* grant a Compact such authority, so we can
deduce nothing from this example.

Finally, he cites Rule 721:

      Unless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the Vizier
      of a Group shall be that Founder of the Group whose Application
      was received first by the Notary.  If this person is no longer a
      Member of the Group, then the Group shall be dissolved.

*Now*, Morendil has a strong case.  If we are to read this Rule
in the same way that we have proposed to read 1534, then it
would seem that this Rule is silent on the identity of the
Vizier when the Ordinances of a Group attempt to specify
the Vizier.  And unlike the example of 1612, there is no other Rule
that speaks on the identity of the Vizier.  But there is a clear
and long-standing Game Custom that this Rule *does* grant a
Group's Ordinances the authority to specify the Vizier.  Thus,
I can only conlude that a construction along the lines of
"Unless the Compact specifies otherwise..." *does* grant
the Compact authority in whatever realm the Rule deals with.

favor tries to disarm the 721 analogy by arguing that Rule
1591, allowing Compacts to constrain the action of those in
its Jurisdiction, allows a Group's Ordinances to specify
its Vizier.  But this argument is clearly flawed.  The
Misanthropist's Groups Ordinances, for example, specify that
favor is its Vizier.  But it is not only those in the
Misanthropist's Group who are required to recognize favor as
its Vizier!  Assessor Kelly must accept Group Votes from Vizier
favor, and Notary Vanyel must list favor as Vizier--this in
spite of the fact that neither Kelly nor Vanyel are within
the Jurisdiction of the Misanthropist's Group Ordinances.

Thus, I conlcude that by analogy with 721 and by game custom,
the language in Rule 1534 *does* grant a Contest authority to require
Players not in its Jurisdiction to D&R.

Kelly raises the second issue, that of Rule 1538.  Since
other players were not aware of the Regulations of MFO, the
new Regulations not having been sent to them, does 1538 absolve
them of the duty they would otherwise have?  It does not.  Rule
1538 would only do that if the new Regulations had not been
"made available" to them, which I interpret to mean that they
would be supplied upon request.  There is no evidence to suggest
that the new Regulations where not made available.

It is clear, then, that those Players not on Hold (other than
Morendil) committed an Infraction of the sort described in
Rule 1599.  The third issue to be addressed is that
raised by Steve: In light of Rule 1584, could a Player
on Hold (i.e. Swann) have committed that sort of infraction as
well?  Let's look again at the relevant part of Rule 1599:

      When a Rule requires a Player to report a Currency transfer to
      the Recordkeepor of a Currency, that Player is required to do so
      within seven days.  The failure to do so is an Infraction...

"The failure to do so is an Infraction."  Hmm.  The failure to
do what?  This question is not as easy as it looks at
first glance.

Morendil argues that it means "The failure to report the Currency
transfer within seven days is an Infraction."

Steve argues that it means "The failure to fulfill the requirement
of reporting the Currency transfer within seven days is an Infraction."

I agree with both of them, inasmuch as if their reading is correct,
then their conclusion is correct.  If Morendil's reading is
the proper one, then Swann did commit an Infraction.  While
not reporting the transfer was legal, a legal action can still
constitute an Infraction; Rule 1507 says as much.  Meanwhile,
if Steve's reading is the correct one, then there was no Infraction,
as there was no requirement (Rule 1584).

Which reading is the correct one?  There is no absolutely
conclusive evidence one way or the other.  But we can find
some fairly strong evidence in the second paragraph of Rule
1599:

      The failure to report a Currency transfer as required by the
      Rules does not in any way deprive the transfer of legal force.

In the absence of any stronger evidence, it is reasonable to
conclude that "the failure to do so" in the first paragraph is
the same failure referenced in the second paragraph, where the
nature of the failure is more clearly spelled out: it is
"the failure to report a Currency transfer *as required
by the Rules*."  Thus, Steve's reading is the correct one.
Swann had no requirement to D&R the transfer, and thus did
not commit the failure in Rule 1599, and did not commit
that Infraction.

I therefore Judge the statement to be FALSE.


========================================================================
Additional evidence:
1.  Rule 1591
2.  Rule 1614
3.  Rule 1612
4.  Rule 1589
5.  Rule  721
6.  Rule 1538
7.  Rule 1599
8.  Rule 1584
9.  Rule 1507

===1.  Rule 1591

Rule 1591/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Jurisdiction of SLCs

      A SLC has the power to constrain the actions of Players in
      the same manner as the Rules.  However, a SLC has power over
      only those Players within its Jurisdiction, as defined in the
      Rules authorizing that SLC.

      The Jurisdiction of a SLC must be specified by the Rules,
      either directly or indirectly.  If the Jurisdiction of a SLC
      might vary over the course of the existence of the SLC, the
      Rules must specify a Player who is required to maintain a record
      of which Players are within the Jurisdiction of that SLC.

History:
Created by Proposal 2490, Feb. 16 1996

===2.  Rule 1614

Rule 1614/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Organizations' Names

      An entity is an Organization only if it has a name defined for
      it, and if that name is distinnct from the name of every other
      Organization. 

      The name of an Organization cannot be changed in a manner such
      that if, after that change, two or more Organizations would have
      the same name.

      An Organization cannot be created if after that
      creation, two or more Organization would have the same name.

      Otherwise, the name of an Organization cany only be changed as
      specified by its Compact, or, in lieu of any specific procedure
      in its Compact, with the unanimous consent of all the Players
      within its Compact's Jurisdiction.  The Administrator of an
      Organization shall notify the Notary as soon as possible after
      the Organization's name is changed.

History:
Created by Proposal 2525, Mar. 10 1996

===3.  Rule 1612

Rule 1612/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Organizations' Compacts

      For each Organization, let there be a SLC associated with that
      Organization called its Compact.

      Unless otherwise specified in the Compact, a Compact can be
      changed by the unanimous consent of all the Players within its
      Jurisdiction.  The Administrator of an Organization is the
      Maintainer of the Organization's Compact.  

      The Jurisdiction of an Organization's Compact can vary over the
      period of its existence.  the Administrator of the Organization
      shall maintain a record of the Compact's Jurisdiction.  The
      Compact of an Organization ceases to exist when the Organization
      ceases to exist.

History:
Created by Proposal 2525, Mar. 10 1996

===4.  Rule 1589

Rule 1589/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Modification of SLCs

      A SLC shall not be changed except in accordance with the Rules.
      Notwithstanding any other method which may be defined, a SLC
      can always be changed by the adoption of a Directive to amend
      the SLC.  The Proposal containing such a Directive shall have an
      AI of at least 1, and if adopted the Directive has the effect of
      modifying the SLC in the manner specified in the Directive.

      A SLC is permitted to define its own mechanisms for changing its
      own content, and any change to a SLC adopted in accordance with
      its own mechanisms is legal.

History:
Created by Proposal 2490, Feb. 16 1996

===5.  Rule  721

Rule 721/3 (Mutable, MI=1)
The Ordinances, and Defaults

      Unless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the Vizier
      of a Group shall be that Founder of the Group whose Application
      was received first by the Notary.  If this person is no longer a
      Member of the Group, then the Group shall be dissolved.

      Unless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the
      Ordinancekeepor of a Group shall be its Vizier. 

      If a given Group is a Voting Entity, then it shall be entitled
      to cast Vote(s) only as specified by its Ordinances.  If the
      Ordinances of the Group do not specify how the Group shall cast
      its Vote(s), it may not do so.

      A Group is not entitled to cast Votes on a Proposal if it did
      not exist at the beginning of the Voting Period of that
      Proposal.  

      A Group with fewer than three Members is not entitled to cast
      Votes.

      The Vizier of a Group is responsible to communicate the Group's
      Votes to the Assessor.

History:
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1641, Aug. 1 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 2563, Apr. 6 1996

===6.  Rule 1538

Rule 1538/2 (Mutable, MI=1)
Definition of Violation

      If a Player performs an action which is prohibited by any Rule,
      or any other body of text which is defined to have the same
      force as a Rule, that action shall be known as a Rules
      Violation. 

      Before a body of text is permitted to have the same force as a
      Rule with regards to a particular Player, said body of text
      shall have previously been made available to that Player. 

History:
Created by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995
Amended(1) by Proposal 2288, Dec. 29 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 2453, Feb. 6 1996

===7.  Rule 1599

Rule 1599/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Requirement to Report Currency Transfers

      When a Rule requires a Player to report a Currency transfer to
      the Recordkeepor of a Currency, that Player is required to do so
      within seven days.  The failure to do so is an Infraction, the
      penalty for which is 1 Blot, which shall be reported by the
      Recordkeepor of the Currency involved.

      The failure to report a Currency transfer as required by the
      Rules does not in any way deprive the transfer of legal force.

      This Rule defers to any Rule which specifies a different time
      limit for reporting a certain transfer or class of transfers.

History:
Created by Proposal 2493, Feb. 16 1996

===8.  Rule 1584

Rule 1584/0 (Semimutable, MI=2)
Absolvement of Duty for On Hold Players

      An On Hold Player is not permitted to Vote on Proposals, make
      Proposals, or hold Office, and cannot be required by the Rules
      to perform any duty or action, unless that Rule specifically
      states that it can require On Hold Players to perform actions.

      This Rule takes precedence over every other Rule.

History:
Created by Proposal 2479, Feb. 16 1996

===9.  Rule 1507

Rule 1507/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Infractions: General Definition

      Whenever a Player performs an action which is designated by the
      Rules as a Infraction, that Player shall be subject to the
      penalties for that Infraction, as defined by the Rules.

      An action is a Infraction only if there is a Rule which
      designates it to be a Infraction.  The fact that an action is
      prohibited by the Rules is not sufficient to make it a
      Infraction.  The designation of an action as a Infraction
      neither grants nor denies legal status to that action.

      A Rule which designates an action to be a Infraction must
      specify an explicit penalty for committing that Infraction.  If
      a Rule designates an action to be a Infraction, but does not
      specify an explicit penalty, then that Infraction shall not have
      any associated penalty.

      A Rule which designates an action to be an Infraction must
      specify the Officer who is to detect and report that Infraction,
      and only that Officer and the Speaker are authorized to detect
      and report that Infraction.  A report of an Infraction by a
      Player other than the Officer mandated to report such
      Infractions or the Speaker has no legal effect.  

History:
Created by Proposal 1690, Sep. 1 1995