======================================================================
                               CFJ 928

"No Currency transfers occured as a result of the application of
 Proposal 3482."

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

Judge:        Morendil

Judgement:    TRUE

Eligible:     Andre, Antimatter, Blob, Chuck, Crito, Elde, elJefe,
              Harlequin, Michael, Morendil, Murphy, Oerjan, Swann,
              Zefram

Not eligible:
Caller:       General Chaos
Barred:       Steve
Disqualified: Vanyel
On hold:      -

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

History:
  Called by General Chaos, Wed, 25 Jun 1997 00:51:39 -0500
  Assigned to Morendil, Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:38:17 +0100
  Judged TRUE, Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:43:35 +0200
  Published, Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:00:59 +0100
  Concurring opinion attached, Wed, 2 Jul 1997 13:49:47 +1000 (EST)

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

Judgement: TRUE

Reasons and arguments:

I see nothing substantial to add to the Caller's arguments, which
present not one, but two convincing reasons for finding thus, either
of which would be sufficient.

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

Concurring Opinion:

We agree with the Caller, General Chaos, and the Judge, Morendil, that
Proposal 3482 did not cause any Currency Transfers to legally take
place. This can be certainly concluded, and concluded alone, from the
second of the arguments given by the Caller, namely, that the Proposal
did not and could not meet the requirement in R1472(d) that some Rule
specify a Player to detect and report the transfers it sought to
effect. However, we would like it noted that the question of whether,
in the absence of this requirement in R1472(d), the Currency Transfers
in P3482 would still have been ineffective as the Caller alleged and
the Judge accepted, or whether on the other hand, the authorization
granted by R594 for Proposals to alter Nomic Properties is sufficient
to count as specific authorization to cause Currency Transfers, is a
question that has not been definitively settled in this CFJ.

Signatures: Steve, Murphy, Eljefe, Michael, Crito

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

(Caller's) Arguments:

Proposal 3482 sought to require several Currency transfers.  I argue
that it is not permissible for an adopted Proposal to directly require
Currency Transfers, for two reasons.

First, Rule 1596 states:

      The Rules have the power to require the transfer of Currencies;
      no other Entity also has this power unless explicitly granted it
      by the Rules, and then only to the extent granted by the Rules.

An adopted Proposal is not a Rule.  It therefore only has the power to
cause Currency transfers if explicitly granted it by the Rules.  No
such grant exists.  The only Rule that grants any sort of power to
adopted Proposals is Rule 594, and nowhere in this Rule is the power
to require Currency transfers explicitly granted.  While it is true
that Rule 594 defines the application of a Proposal as a legal
procedure for changing Nomic Properties, Rule 594 also limits this
ability to those changes which are permitted by the Rules.  A Proposal
is still limited to doing only those things the Rules do not deny of
it, and one of the things denied of a Proposal is the power to require
a Currency Transfer, by Rule 1596.  A similar argument can be made
showing that Rule 1472 also denies an adopted Proposal the power to
require a Currency transfer.

Furthermore, even if we grant that a Proposal can require a Currency
Transfer, there is still a problem.  Rule 1472 requires that, for a
transfer of Currency to occur, "[s]ome Rule must specify a Player
whose duty it is to report the occurence of the transfer to the
Recordkeepor of the Currency involved."  There is no Rule which
specifies who is to report Currency transfers of the sort that
Proposal 3482 sought to require.  The Proposal itself does specify
that the Assessor is to do so, but, as I have already noted, an
adopted Proposal is not a Rule.  Thus, the attempted transfer is
prohibited by Rule 1472.

Evidence:

Rule 594/3 (Power=1)
Proposals and Rule Changes

      When a Proposal is adopted, its Power becomes equal to its
      Adoption Index, and the provisions contained in the text of the
      Proposal are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by the
      Rules.  Provisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable
      are ignored.  In a Proposal containing more than one provision,
      each provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal
      states otherwise.

      For the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted
      Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties.

      The Adoption Index of a Proposal is the maximum of 1, the value
      requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value required for
      that Proposal by the Rules (if any).

[CFJ 778: It is legal for a Proposal to contain zero Rule Changes.]

History:
Created by Proposal 594, Oct. 21 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 1323, Nov. 21 1994
Amended(2) by Proposal 2399, Jan. 20 1996
Amended(3) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar 26 1997, substantial

Authors: ..., General Chaos

Rule 1472/3 (Power=1)
Transfer of Currencies

      Units of Currency are transferrable between Treasuries under the
      following conditions:

      a) The transfer shall be from exactly one Treasury to exactly
         one other Treasury.
      b) The transfer must be of a positive amount of exactly one
         Currency, and that amount must be an exact integral multiple
         of that Currency's MUQ.
      c) Some Rule must authorize the transfer, either by requiring it
         directly or by granting authority to require the transfer to
         some other entity.
      d) Some Rule must specify a Player whose duty it is to report
         the occurence of the transfer to the Recordkeepor of the
         Currency involved.

      This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would permit or
      require a transfer prohibited by this Rule, and defers to any
      Rule which prohibits a transfer permitted by this Rule.

[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
Amended(3) by Proposal 2493, Feb. 16 1996

Rule 1596/1 (Power=1)
Currency Transfers, generally

      The Rules have the power to require the transfer of Currencies;
      no other Entity also has this power unless explicitly granted it
      by the Rules, and then only to the extent granted by the Rules.

      No Entity other than the Rules themselves has the power to
      require any transfer which would result in the Treasury being
      transferred from containing a negative quantity of the Currency
      transferred.

      Whenever an Entity requires a transfer of Currencies to take
      place, the transfer takes place as required, provided that the
      Entity which is requiring the transfer is permitted by the Rules
      to require that transfer, and provided that the transfer is
      otherwise permitted by the Rules.

      Such a transfer takes place at the time specified by the Entity
      which requires the transfer, or, if no time is specified, at the
      time when the Entity first begins to require the transfer.

      This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would permit or
      require a transfer prohibited by this Rule.  When another Rule
      would prohibit some transfer permitted by this Rule, this Rule
      defers to that Rule with respect to that transfer.

History:
Created by Proposal 2493, Feb. 16 1996
Amended(1) by Proposal 2626, Jun. 29 1996

Proposal 3482 by Steve
Restore Game Balance

[Comment: In order for Voting Tokens to be interesting and valuable,
they need to be at least slightly scarce. However, the taxless post-2817
regime, and Crito's scam, have combined to massively increase the number
of VTs in circulation. It is my view that a desirable figure for the
total number of VTs in circulation is between 200 and 300. The question
is: how to achieve this fairly? One principle I want to respect is that
good play should be rewarded. Another principle is that a reasonable
game balance should be maintained, with no Player having a wildly
disproportionate share of the VTs in circulation. Hence the scheme
below curbs the wilder excesses caused by Crito's scam, while more or
less preserving relative VT wealth.]

Be it hereby resolved that upon this Proposal's taking effect,
all Voting Tokens held in Treasuries belonging to Contests
shall be transferred to the Bank. These transfers are detected
and reported by the Assessor.

Be it hereby resolved that upon this Proposal's taking effect, each
Treasury containing more than 200 Voting Tokens shall have transferred
from it to the Bank all but 200 of the Voting Tokens in it. These
transfers are detected and reported by the Assessor.

[Comment: using the current VT Report as a guide, this takes about 5500
VTs out of circulation, and leaves about 1950 VTs in circulation.]

Be it further resolved that upon this Proposal's taking effect, seven
eighths of the Voting Tokens in every Treasury except the Bank's shall
be transferred to the Bank. These transfers are detected and reported
by the Assessor.

[Comment:...leaving about 250 VTs in circulation.]

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