-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
/
1090
198 lines (159 loc) · 8.31 KB
/
1090
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
======================================================================
CFJ 1090
No Proposal entitled "The Great Officer's Veto Scam Proposal" has
been distributed.
======================================================================
Judge: Michael
Justices: Crito, Blob, Jester
Judgement: TRUE
Eligible: Antimatter, Blob, Chuck, Crito, elJefe, Harlequin,
Jester, Kolja A., Michael, Morendil, Oerjan, Steve,
Swann, Time Agent
Not eligible:
Caller: Murphy
Barred: -
Disqualified: -
On hold: General Chaos, Sherlock
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First Appeal eligibility:
On Hold: elJefe, General Chaos
Originally ineligible: Sherlock, Murphy
Judge: Michael
Default Justices: Steve, Morendil
Eligible: Antimatter, Blob, Chuck, Crito, Harlequin, Jester, Kolja A.,
Oerjan, Swann, Time Agent
(Rolled an eight on 0-9 sided dice: selection is Swann)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Second Appeal eligibility:
On Hold: elJefe, General Chaos, Oerjan
Originally ineligible: Sherlock, Murphy
Judge: Michael
Already served: Swann, Steve, Morendil
Eligible: Antimatter, Blob, Chuck, Crito, Harlequin, Jester, Kolja A.,
Time Agent
(Rolled a three on 0-7 sided dice: selection is Crito)
(Rolled a zero on 0-6 sided dice: selection is Antimatter)
(Rolled a five on 0-5 sided dice: selection is Time Agent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Third Appeal eligibility:
On Hold: General Chaos, Oerjan, Antimatter
Originally ineligible: Sherlock, Murphy
Judge: Michael
Already served: Swann, Steve, Morendil
Existing Justice: Crito
Eligible: Blob, Chuck, elJefe, Harlequin, Jester, Kolja A.
(Rolled a zero on 0-5 sided dice: selection is Blob)
(Rolled a three on 0-4 sided dice: selection is Jester)
======================================================================
History:
Called by Murphy, 18 Mar 1998 01:50:52 -0800
Assigned to Michael, 19 Mar 1998 11:34:04 +0000
Judged TRUE, 26 Mar 1998 09:26:50 +0000
Published, 27 Mar 1998 11:32:14 +0000
Appealed by Blob, Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:24:42 +1100 (EST)
Appealed by Antimatter, Fri, 27 Mar 1998 20:52:20 +0000
Appealed by General Chaos, Sat, 28 Mar 1998 07:55:09 -0500
Appeals process begins, Sat, 28 Mar 1998 13:44:21 +0000
All Justices default, Sat, 4 Apr 1998 13:44:21 +0000
Fresh Appeals Board formed and announced,
Tue, 7 Apr 1998 09:37:43 +0100
Crito SUSTAINS the judgement, Mon, 13 Apr 1998 10:56:56 -0400
Justices Time Agent and Antimatter default
Replacement Justices chosen and announced,
Thu, 16 Apr 1998 08:48:24 +0100
Blob SUSTAINS the judgement, Thu, 16 Apr 1998 18:02:02 +1000
Jester SUSTAINS the judgement, Sat, 18 Apr 1998 20:45:41 +1000
Final decision reported, Sat, 18 Apr 1998 12:40:58 +0100
======================================================================
Appelate decisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Crito:
I have nothing to add to the arguments that have already been posted
in the discussions related to this CFJ. I find no flaws in the
argument presented by the original Judge, Michael, and therefore, I
vote to Sustain this Judgement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Blob:
Apart from referring the reader to the excellent analysis made by the
Justices on the closely related CFJ 1089, I also have nothing to add
to this CFJ. I find the judge's reasoning to be correct, and vote to
Sustain this Judgement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jester:
I have previously stated that I am a bit of a stickler for the letter
of the law. The Proposal posted for voting was not the same as the
Proposal originally submitted. Therefore, I feel bound to uphold the
judgement.
======================================================================
Original Judgement: TRUE
Reasons and arguments:
The definition of Proposal is in Rule 1483, power = 1.
A Proposal is created whenever a Proposing Entity delivers some
collection of text to the Promotor with the clear indication
that that text is intended to become a Proposal. The collection
of text thus delivered is a new Proposal, and the Proposing
Entity which delivered it its Proposer. A collection of text is
said to be Proposed when it becomes a Proposal.
The delivery of the text of an existing Proposal which was
Proposed less than three weeks previously does not cause that
text to become another Proposal, unless there is a clear
indication that that text is intended to become a duplicate of a
prior Proposal. In this case, the Proposing Entity must
specifically acknowledge that the intended new Proposal is a
duplicate of an existing Proposal.
Further, the Promotor's distribution of previously undistributed
Proposals never causes the Proposing of new Proposals.
The issue of contention in the statement of the CFJ comes about
because a piece of text presumed to have been a Proposal was
distributed by Promotor Blob at time Wed, 4 Mar 1998 13:14:12 +1100
(EST), in an e-mail message with ID:
However, the text distributed as Proposal 3710 included the following:
This Rule commemorates the Glorious and Dramatic Wins achieved
by the Members of the Threat, Blob, elJefe, General Chaos and
Steve, with the passage of Proposal <proposal numberat time
<time>, which were made possible primarily by exploiting a
loophole in the Rule 'Officer's Veto'.
I shall now argue that this paragraph was not present in any
collection of text delivered to the Promotor with the clear indication
that this text was intended to become a Proposal.
Who might have delivered such a text? Swann certainly did not deliver
this text to Blob. He did deliver a similar text, but it was
sufficiently different not to be legally the same. (The only rules
allowing for different texts to be considered legally same are R754,
which talks only of differences of spelling, grammar and dialect, and
R1339 which talks of variation of white-space and capitalisation in
rule change specifications.)
Could Blob have delivered the text to himself in such a way as to
satisfy the conditions in R1483? This is a more interesting question.
However, I do not believe that this could have happened for two
reasons:
i) We have no evidence to suggest that Blob at any stage initiated
the delivery of the text in question, except possibly when he
distributed the text in the message referred to above. We rule
out this latter possibility, because as is clear from the
reactions of the Players of Agora (who voted on the putative
Proposal), there was no clear indication that this text was
intended to become a Proposal. Rather the distribution of this
text (including its delivery to Blob via the Public Forum)
convinced everyone that a real Proposal was before them and had
been distributed.
ii) Even if Blob did manage to somehow deliver the text to himself
prior to his ditribution of it to the Public Forum, his subsequent
behaviour again suggests that there was no clear indication
attached to the text that this was intended to become a Proposal.
If there had been such an indication with the text, then he would
not have distributed it under Swann's name, and would not have
attributed it an Urgency that it did not have.
As the text distributed in the message referred to above is the only
possible instance of a Proposal being distributed with the name in
question, and as I have ruled out this possibility, I conclude that
the statement of the CFJ is TRUE.
======================================================================
(Caller's) Arguments:
Promotor Blob's attempt to distribute this Proposal included a typo
not present in Swann's Proposal submission. This statement claims
that, therefore, the text in Blob's message was not a Proposal at all;
in particular, that Blob had not implicitly submitted that text as a
Proposal
======================================================================