----------------------------------------------------------------------

From owner-agora-officia-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Thu Sep  4 07:37 EDT 1997
Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (majordom-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au [144.110.168.141]) by cs.brown.edu (8.8.5/8.7.1) with ESMTP id HAA12328 for dp-@cs.brown.edu; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 07:37:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordom-@localhost)
	by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA08578
	for agora-official-list; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 21:04:07 +1000
Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168])
	by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA08572
	for agora-officia-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 21:03:48 +1000
Received: by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.7.1/1.45)
    id NAA14560; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:05:26 +0200 (MET DST)
From: engel-@win.tue.nl (Andre Engels)
Message-Id: 199709041105.naa1456-@wsinfm15.win.tue.nl
Subject: OFF: Final Judgement CFJ 837
To: agora-officia-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:05:25 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-agora-officia-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: agora-discussio-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 28001
Status: N

=====================================================================
                               CFJ 937

"No Player is currently required to report a change in Blots resulting
 from the commission of an Infraction."

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

Judge:        Steve
Justices:     Andre, replacement for Michael (C), elJefe (J), 
              General Chaos (S)

Orgnl Jdgmnt: FALSE
Judgement:    FALSE (UPHELD)

Eligible:     Andre, Antimatter, Blob, Calabresi, Chuck, Crito, Elde,
              elJefe, General Chaos, Harlequin, Kolja A., Michael,
              Murphy, Steve, Vlad, Zefram

Not eligible:
Caller:       Morendil
Barred:       -
Disqualified: Vanyel
On hold:      Oerjan, Swann

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

History:
  Called by Morendil, Fri, 15 Aug 1997 20:47:28 +0100
  Assigned to Steve, Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:16:07 +0100
  Judged FALSE, Mon, 25 Aug 1997 15:30:06 +1000 (EST)
  Published, Tue, 26 Aug 1997 14:56:10 +0100
  Appealed by Morendil, Tue, 26 Aug 1997 22:54:13 +0100
  Appealed by Blob, Tue, 26 Aug 1997 22:54:13 +0100
  Appealed by Elde, Tue, 26 Aug 1997 22:54:13 +0100
  Appeals process begun, Thu, 28 Aug 1997 12:32:30 +0100
  Speaker General Chaos judges UPHOLD, Sat, 30 Aug 1997 16:39:46 -0500
  Justiciar elJefe judges UPHOLD, Wed, 3 Sep 1997 09:11:04 +0000
  CotC Andre judges UPHOLD, Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:53:45 +0200 (MET DST)
  Published, as of this message

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

Judgement: FALSE

Reaons and arguments:

Morendil's argument is in two parts: first he argues that the Herald
is not required to keep track of changes in Blots resulting from the
commission of Infractions; then he argues that no other Player is
required to keep track of such changes in Blots.

Let us take the second - and by far the trickier - of these arguments
first, and consider a specific example, that of the Infraction of
Failure to Report, defined in R1686. Morendil argues that the
Registrar is not required to report changes in Blots resulting from
the commission of this Infraction. There is a sense, not discussed by
Morendil, in which this is trivially true: no Rule actually requires
the Registrar to report the commission of the Infraction at all!
Strictly speaking, the Registrar has discretionary power not to report
the commission of this Infraction even if e is aware that the
Infraction has been committed. E is merely authorized to do so.

We should be wary, however, of drawing general conclusions from a
specific case such as this, for the Rules are not consistently
formulated in this respect.  So, while Tardiness (R1023) and
Dereliction of Duty (R1644) are treated like Failure to Report in that
a Player or group of Players are authorized but not required to report
the commission of the Infraction when it occurs, it could be argued
that in the case of Delayed COE Response (R1431), the Player who
posted the original Claim of Error *is* required to report the
incursion of a Blot penalty (the Rule says that the penalty is "to be
reported", which plausibly can be read as imposing a requirement to
report), and similar remarks apply to the Infraction of Excess
Proposing (R1065), and to other Infractions defined in the Rules.

Morendil's statement is, however, very general, claiming that "No
Player is currently required to report a change in Blots resulting
from the commission of an Infraction." The strategy we need then is
either to concentrate on Infractions like Delayed COE Response, or
just to assume in the case of Infractions like Failure to Report that
the Registrar does in fact report the commission of the Infraction,
and see what follows.

Well, what does follow? Regarding Delayed COE Response, we have this
statement from R1431:

      A Player who fails to post a Response within the alloted time
      commits the Infraction of Delayed COE Response, carrying a
      penalty of 1 Blot, to be reported by the Player who posted the
      Claim.

Rule 1435 states:

      A Payment Order for 1 Indulgence, the payee of which is the
      Bank, is called a Blot. When a Rule states that a Player is to
      gain some number of Blots, a Payment Order shall be executed
      with that Player as the payor, the Bank as the payee, and for a
      number of Indulgences equal to the number of Blots that Player
      is to receive. This order is to be executed by whomever is
      required to report the change in Blots.

while Rule 1504 states:

      Penalties for Infractions are applied immediately upon their
      legal report, and the Player making the report of the Infraction
      shall execute whatever Payment Order(s) are required to apply
      the penalty specified for that Infraction.

Question: what happens if I legally report the commission of the
Infraction of Delayed COE Response by posting to the PF: "Jill has
committed the Infraction of Delayed COE Response, and gains 1 Blot."?
In particular, does this message constitute the execution of a Payment
Order for 1 Indulgence from Jill to the Bank? Given the identification
of Blots with Payment Orders for Indulgences in R1435, I think the
answer is 'yes'.

It is crucial to note that the question here is *not* whether the
simple reporting of the commission of the Infraction (without
mentioning the Blot penalty) constitutes the execution of a PO for
Indulgences. On that question, I agree with Morendil that these are
not identical. But that observation is of no use to us here, because
here we are concerned with changes in Blots. If I post the PF merely
that "Jill has committed the Infraction of Delayed COE Response.",
then I have not yet done all that R1431 requires me to do, since I am
also required to report that Jill has earned a 1 Blot penalty. This is
important because Morendil's argument relies at this point on the
claim that, in general, all that a Player who is required to report
the commission of an Infraction is required to do is report the
commission of the Infraction, and no more. But in at least one case -
Delayed COE Response - we find a counterexample to that claim. Merely
reporting the Infraction is not enough; I have to report the Blot
penalty also. In fact, even in a case like Failure to Report, where
the relevant Rule (1686) makes no specific mention of a Blot penalty,
the reference to a penalty "the same as...for a Class D crime" is
enough to ensure, via R1504, that if the Registrar does report the
commission of the Infraction, then e is required to execute a PO for
Indulgences, and hence report a change in Blots. So, after extensive
argumentation, we can see that the second part of Morendil's argument
fails.

[It's worth commenting at this point on an ambiguity in R1504: it's
not clear whether the report of the Infraction and the report of the
gain in Blots have to be made in the same message, or whether the
report of gain in Blots can follow the report of the Infraction by up
to seven days. The first sentence of R1504 states that "Penalties for
Infractions are applied immediately upon their legal report". But the
legal report of what: the penalties or the infractions? If infractions
is meant, R1504 is somewhat in tension with itself, since it
immediately goes on to imply (along with other Rules, eg R1599) that
the application of the penalty can be later than the report of the
Infraction. So I read R1504 as saying that penalties for Infractions
are applied at the time the penalty is reported, which can be later
than the time the Infraction is reported.]

Turning now to the first part of Morendil's argument, we can see much
more straightforwardly that it too fails. Morendil argues that the
Herald is not required to report changes in Blots.

The responsibilities of Recordkeepors with respect to their Currencies
are set out in Rules 1578 and 1596:

1578: The Recordkeepor of a Currency is required to maintain a record
      of the amounts of that Currency held by the various entities
      which possess units of that Currency.

1596: Each Recordkeepor shall maintain a record of all Payment Orders
      executed which specify the Currency of which e is the
      Recordkeepor; this record shall also indicate, for each Order,
      whether that Order has been satisfied, is disputed, or has been
      vacated.

Regarding the relationship between Indulgences and Blots, the Rules
are reasonably clear. "A Payment Order for 1 Indulgence," says R1435,
"the payee of which is the Bank, is called a Blot." This seems pretty
straightforward.  Blots are outstanding Payment Orders for
Indulgences, including (not excluding, pace Morendil) disputed Payment
Orders.  Vacated Payment Orders don't count as outstanding Payment
Orders, which seems to me to be the purpose of the clarificatory
language (which is what I take it to be) in the second paragraph of
R1435.

A 'change in Blots', then, is simply a change in the number of
non-vacated outstanding Payment Orders for Indulgences which have been
assessed against a Player. Now we come to Morendil's first point: he
argues that no Rule specifically requires the Herald to keep track of
changes in the number of non-vacated outstanding Payment Orders for
Indulgences which have been assessed against a Player. (Or rather,
this is the argument he offers after one has corrected the mistake he
makes about whether disputed Payment Orders for Indulgences count as
Blots.) This claim is, strictly speaking, correct. No Rules
specifically makes such a requirement. But that is because no Rule
needs specifically to make such a requirement. Such a requirement is
already implicit in the more general requirement set out in R1596 that
the Herald maintain records of all Payment Orders for Indulgences and
their statuses, be they satisfied, disputed or vacated. In fulfilling
this requirement, the Herald will, ipso facto, be keeping track of any
change in the number of non-vacated Payment Orders for Indulgences,
and hence, in the number of Blots.

This is enough to show that the Statement is FALSE, for the argument
given above shows that Herald is required to keep track of, and hence
ultimately to Report (via R1377), changes in Blots resulting from the
commission of Infractions.

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

Judgement of General Chaos, Speaker: UPHOLD

I can see no compelling reason to disturb Judge Steve's ruling in this
matter.  In addition to Steve's arguments, with which I have no
substantial disagreement, I add the following:

Morendil notes in his argument that a change of Blots is the result of
the execution of a Payment Order in Indulgences.  If this is, in fact,
the case, then clearly someone is required to report a change of
Blots: the executor of each particular Payment Order in Indulgences.
Rule 1596/2 clearly requires Payment Orders to be posted to the Public
Forum, which in my mind effectively amounts to "reporting" the event.

It is my opinion that the original Judgement of FALSE be UPHELD.  

Entered this 30th day of August,

Justice General Chaos, Speaker

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

Decision of elJefe, Justiciar: UPHOLD

Judge Steve reasoned that both the Herald and the player reporting the
infraction are required by the Rules to report the change in Blots (though
in different ways).  Either of these will make the statement FALSE, and inb
this appeal I will concentrate on the second of these.

If someone executes a Payment Order for indulgences away from a player to
the Bank, this is a report of a new Blot (or Blots), and is implicitly a
report of a change in Blots.  Thus the statement is FALSE if the Rules
require any player to execute any such POs.

Rule 1504 requires the player reporting an Infraction to execute a PO for
Indulgences to apply the penalty for the Infraction.  No Rule of higher
precedence appears to absolve em of this duty. Therefore the Statement is
FALSE.

In post-judgement discussion, Laurent made much of a supposed conflict
between Rules 1435 and 1504. But even if these Rules imposed the
requirement on different Players, that does not constitute a conflict. If
Rule 1504 requires me to execute a PO and rule 1435 requires Laurent to
execute a PO then I suppose we would both need to execute the PO's.  In any
case at least one player would be required to execute the PO and thus
report a change in Blots.

Even if (for the sake of argument) there was a conflict, 1504's requirement
could only be removed by a higher-precedence rule requiring a different
player to perform the duty.  In this case there would still be a player
required to execute the PO, with the same conclusion.

However, in eir argument Laurent wants to have it both ways.  First, he
claims that 1435 and 1504 require different players to execute the PO.
Then he claims that 1504 does not actually require a Player to execute the
PO.  These cannot both be true.

My higher point is that the mere potential for conflict does not invalidate
the lower-precedence Rule.  If 1504 specifies a player unequivocally, and
1435 tries to specify a player but fails, then there is not an actual
conflict.

elJefe, Justiciar of Agora Nomic

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

Judgement of Andre, CotC: UPHOLD

What is a 'change in Blots'? According to Rule 1435 a Blot is 'a Payment
Order for one Indulgence, the payee of which is the Bank.' A change in
Blots is thus a change in the number or nature of such Payment Orders (by
the way this implies that '5 Blots' is '5 Payment Orders of 1 Indulgence',
not 'a Payment Order of 5 Indulgences').

Which changes in Blots are resulting from the commission of an Infraction?
I will not be too pesky here, and read this as it was meant, something like
'a change in Blots, coming into existence as (part of) the Penalty for an
Infraction'. As can be seen from the Rules, these can only be the creation
of Blots with the Player who committed the Infraction as Payor.

So, is anybody required to report the creation of such a Payment Order? I
think the answer is yes.

Rule 1504 states:

      Penalties for Infractions are applied immediately upon their
      legal report, and the Player making the report of the Infraction
      shall execute whatever Payment Order(s) are required to apply
      the penalty specified for that Infraction.  If a CFJ later finds
      that the Infraction did not occur, the Judge of that CFJ is
      required to issue an Injunction requiring the Clerk of the
      Courts to vacate the Payment Order(s) originally executed to
      apply the penalty.

So the Player who reports the Infraction is required to execute the
Payment Order. Rule 1596 states:

      A Payment Order is executed when a Player with the authority to
      do so (as defined by the Rules) posts the Order to the Public
      Forum.

Thus, this Player has to post the Order to the Public Forum. This act
reports the existence, and implicitly the creation, of the Payment Order,
and thus of the Blot.

Therefore I UPHOLD the original Judgement of FALSE

Andre Engels,
temporary Clerk of the Courts.

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

(Caller's) Arguments:

A Recordkeepor is a Player who is required to maintain a record of
past and present Payment Orders naming a particular Currency. To
fulfill these obligations, it is necessary, and sufficient, that a
Player should be able, if called upon to do so under Rule 1064 (FOIA),
to provide upon request a list of all Payment Orders naming that
particular Currency that have been executed in the last four Weeks,
and their status.

No additional obligation is imposed upon a Recordkeepor with respect
to Payment Orders, or to any given set of Payment Orders. In
particular, a Currency Recordkeepor is not required to keep track of
"changes in the total amount of Payment Orders executed, but not
disputed or vacated", which is the long-winded expansion of the legal
shorthand "a change in Blots". A Recordkeepor is a fortiori not
required to *report* such changes, which makes Rule 1435's designation
of "whomever is required to report the change in Blots" vacuuous.

To sum up : if I were the Recordkeepor for Indulgences, no Rule could
currently _require_ me to post a message to the Public Forum whenever
a Player's Blots changed.

Are some other Players required to post reports of such changes ? This
responsibility could conceivably fall to Players required to post
Reports of Infractions. The reasoning would be : "A report of an
Infraction committed by a particular Player leads to a Blot penalty
assessed against that Player, and thus constitutes a report of a
change in Blots".

This inference, however, misses one crucial step. A "change in Blots"
is the result of a Payment Order in Indulgences being executed. But
the report of an Infraction is not, in and of itself, a Payment Order,
and thus the requirement to report an Infraction cannot simultaneously
constitute a requirement to report a change in Blots.

A solution to this problem would be to enact Implicit Payment Orders,
the mirror image of Implicit Transfer Orders, which - employed with
the same caution which was reserved to ITOs - would restore reports of
Crimes and Infractions to their full effectiveness.

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

Evidence:

Rule 1435/3 (Power=1) (added by Justiciar)
Definition of Indulgences, Blots and Immaculate

      Indulgences are a Currency.  The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is
      the Herald. The Mintor of Indulgences is the Bank.

      A Payment Order for 1 Indulgence, the payee of which is the
      Bank, is called a Blot.  When a Rule states that a Player is to
      gain some number of Blots, a Payment Order shall be executed
      with that Player as the payor, the Bank as the payee, and for a
      number of Indulgences equal to the number of Blots that Player
      is to receive.  This order is to be executed by whomever is
      required to report the change in Blots.

      A Player may be said to have a number of Blots equal to the sum
      of the amounts of all Payment Orders for Indulgences naming em
      as the payor and the Bank as payee, including orders which are
      disputed (but not those which have been vacated or satisfied).
      A Player with no such Payment Orders is Immaculate.  It is a
      Win-Preventing condition for a Player to have one or more Blots.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 1504/5 (Power=1) (added by Justiciar)
Application and Timing of Crimes and Infractions

      When a CFJ determines that a Player has committed a Crime, the
      Judge is required to issue an Injunction requiring the Clerk of
      the Courts to execute Payment Orders required to apply the
      penalty specified for that Crime.

      If an appeal finds the Crime did not occur, the penalty shall
      not be applied.  If the penalty has already been applied, then
      the penalty shall be reversed to the extent possible immediately
      upon resolution of the appeal.

      Penalties for Infractions are applied immediately upon their
      legal report, and the Player making the report of the Infraction
      shall execute whatever Payment Order(s) are required to apply
      the penalty specified for that Infraction.  If a CFJ later finds
      that the Infraction did not occur, the Judge of that CFJ is
      required to issue an Injunction requiring the Clerk of the
      Courts to vacate the Payment Order(s) originally executed to
      apply the penalty.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 1596/1 (Power=1) (added by CotC)
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.

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

Text, provided by Morendil upon his Appeal:

Following are some remarks on the parts of Steve's argument that I believe are
contentious.

===

> There is a sense, not discussed by Morendil, in which this is trivially true:
> no Rule actually requires the Registrar to report the commission of the
> Infraction at all!

I did not discuss this because I felt it to be the more obvious part of the
argument. There is indeed no requirement to report Infractions in general, and
thus there is no requirement to report Blot changes resulting specifically from
the commission of Infractions inherent in the general Rules for Infractions.

To prove the Statement FALSE, it is therefore sufficient to prove, either that
there is a Player who is required to report all changes in Blots in general; or
that there is a requirement on some Player to report all or some changes in
Blots resulting from the commission of an Infraction, and to that extent I agree
with Steve's analysis.

> It could be argued that in the case of Delayed COE Response (R1431), the
> Player who posted the original Claim of Error *is* required to report the
> incursion of a Blot penalty (the Rule says that the penalty is "to be
> reported", which plausibly can be read as imposing a requirement to report), 

I humbly disagree and find this a contrived, rather than plausible, reading of
R1431 or other Rules using the construction 'to be reported by X'. We need look
no further for an explanation of this phrase than Rule 1503, which states

   Any Rule that defines an Infraction must also specify a Player or Players who
   are authorized to detect and report the commission of that Infraction;
   otherwise, the Infraction carries no penalty.

This clearly underlines the use of 'to be reported by X' in the context of a
Rule dealing with Infractions as a 'phrase of art', i.e. the usual and approved
manner of specifying which 'Player or Players [are] authorized to detect and
report the commission of that Infraction'.

Much (if not most !) of Steve's rebuttal of the 'second part' of my own
argument rests upon this dubious reading, however, so I can only hope that the
Justices considering this Appeal will issue a decision on this issue.

> Question: what happens if I legally report the commission of the Infraction of
> Delayed COE Response by posting to the PF: "Jill has committed the Infraction
> of Delayed COE Response, and gains 1 Blot."? In particular, does this message
> constitute the execution of a Payment Order for 1 Indulgence from Jill to the
> Bank? Given the identification of Blots with Payment Orders for Indulgences in
> R1435, I think the answer is 'yes'.

I'm afraid that the answer is not as simple. In particular, answering 'yes' to
this question on the grounds that Blots are POs _assumes_ that Steve, in this
hypothetical example of reporting Jill's infraction, is authorized to execute
Payment Orders in Indulgences corresponding to Blot penalties. However, the crux
of my own argument is that if the Statement in CFJ 937 is TRUE, then Steve is in
such a case *not* authorized to execute such POs, and therefore the answer is
'no'. I'm afraid the reasoning that follows from assuming an answer of 'yes' is
therefore inacceptable.

> In fact, even in a case like Failure to Report, where the relevant Rule (1686)
> makes no specific mention of a Blot penalty, the reference to a penalty "the
> same as...for a Class D crime" is enough to ensure, via R1504, that if the
> Registrar does report the commission of the Infraction, then e is required to
> execute a PO for Indulgences, and hence report a change in Blots.

I must also take issue with this last inference. Steve states that e agrees that
the Report of an Infraction is not identical with a report of a change in Blots,
and that is trivially correct. I argue the subtler point that "being required to
execute a PO in indulgences" is not identical to "being required to report a
change in Blots", even though executing a PO in Indulgences _causes_ a change in
Blots, and coincidentally (since executing a PO is done by posting to the PF)
announces the same fact. If it were possible, say, to execute POs by sending
them directly to the Player and RecordKeepor involved, then no requirement to
execute a PO would conceivably be equivalent to a requirement to report same.

> Blots are outstanding Payment Orders for Indulgences, including (not 
> excluding, pace Morendil) disputed Payment Orders.

I must apologize for the mistake and any confusion resulting from it.

Steve's critique of the first part of part of my argument is potentially more
fruitful, in that if it can conclusively be shown that the requirement to
publish "The Currency Records for Indulgences" (R1377) includes, explicitly or
explicitly, a requirement to report "changes in Blots" in general, then my
argument that the Herald is not required to report Blot changes will indeed be
disproved.

Of the recordkeeping provisions of Rule 1596, Steve states:

> In fulfilling this requirement, the Herald will, ipso facto, be keeping
> track of any change in the number of non-vacated Payment Orders for
> Indulgences, and hence, in the number of Blots. This is enough to show that
> the Statement is FALSE, for the argument given above shows that Herald is
> required to keep track of, and hence ultimately to Report (via R1377), changes
> in Blots resulting from the commission of Infractions.

Earlier in his argument Steve warns of the perils of extrapolating from the
particular to the general. It is true that the Assessor and Promotor are
respectively required to _report_ changes in VTs and P-Notes, by Rules 1696 and
1701. The Herald is in addition required by 1377 to report changes in Honor. But
these are specific exceptions to the general rule that Currency Reports are
required only to contain current information.

The Herald is only required to report Currency information for Indulgences,
which 1596 only requires to includes current information. That the Herald is
required to _keep_track_ of changes thereto may be a consequence of the
requirements of 1596 (though I dispute even that). But I contend that being
required to _know_ of some information, specifically when, why, and by how much
each Player's Blots changed, does not carry a requirement to_publish_ that
information, even under FOIA (which, ironically, did at some time include a
provision requiring the publication of any changes occurring between request and
publication, but no longer does - does anyone know since when ?) 

To put it another way, if I were Herald and in between two of my Reports, 3
Indulgence POs were executed naming Blob, for a total of 10 Blots, I would be
able to fulfill my duties under 1596 without having to disclose the particulars
of any Blot change - thus my contention that I would not be "required to report
Blot changes".