Index ← 942 CFJ 943 944 → text
From Fri Sep 19 05:40 EDT 1997
Received: from ( []) by (8.8.5/8.7.1) with ESMTP id FAA26157 for; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 05:40:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordom-@localhost)
	by (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA14438
	for agora-official-list; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 19:32:24 +1000
Received: from ( [])
	by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA14435
	for; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 19:32:19 +1000
Received: by (8.7.1/1.45)
    id LAA03922; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 11:35:11 +0200 (MET DST)
From: (Andre Engels)
Subject: OFF: CFJ 943 Judgement: TRUE
To: (nomic-official list)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 11:35:10 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 6127


                               CFJ 943

The Clerk of the Courts failed to execute the required Payment Orders within
seven days of reporting an Infraction, as required by Rule 1599, for the
following three Infractions:

    07/24/97 09:35:39 +0100 Failure to Judge by Blob
    07/24/97 09:39:56 +0100 Failure to Judge by Elde
    07/25/97 17:59:28 +0100 Failure to Judge by elJefe


Judge:       ChrisM

Judgement:   FALSE

Eligible:    Andre, Blob, Calabresi, ChrisM, Chuck, Elde, elJefe, 
             General Chaos, Harlequin, Kolja A., Michael, Morendil,
             Murphy, Oerjan, Steve, Vir, Vlad, Zefram

Not eligible:
Caller:      Crito
On request:  Vanyel
On hold:     Swann


  Called by Crito, 15 Sep 1997 10:53:43 -0400
  Assigned to ChrisM, 15 Sep 1997 17:07:40 +0200 (MET DST)
  Judged FALSE by ChrisM, 18 Sep 1997 22:05:25 -0400


(Caller's) Arguments:

It seems that a new CFJ is required to put things right, now that CFJ 940 has
been judged TRUE.

Caller's Other Remarks:

[Note that if judged TRUE, the judge is required to execute these Payment


Decision and Reasoning Judge

Judgement: FALSE


The major problem in this situation is that the concept of payment 
orders, blots, and penalties are incredibly poorly defined in relation to 
each other.

First of all, we have R1435, which tells us that a P.O. for 1 Indulgence 
with a payee as the Bank is called a Blot. It then tells us that when a 
Rule states that a Player is to gain some number of Blots, a P.O. shall 
be executed with that Player as the payor, the Bank as the payee, and for 
a # of indulgences equal to the # of Blots the Player is to receive.

Thus, we have now implicitly recognized the concept of "gaining" a 
payment order, since a PO for 1 Ind. to the Bank = a Blot. This is 
incredibly unclear wording. So once the Blotee has "gained" a payment 
order, someone else is required to "execute" a payment order. Are these 
P.O.'s the same? It's quite unclear. But, and the next paragraph of the 
rule gives some support for this, I'm going to assume that this is just 
poor phrasing.

So now someone is required to 'execute' the payment order. In this case, 
it was the CotC, under R408. A P.O. is "executed" by posting it to the 
Public Forum. So again, we have a point of confusion. Is a P.O. a 
message, or a string of text? Those things can be posted to the Public 
Forum. On the other hand, if that were the case, then any message in the 
correct form would be a P.O., and if it were specifically in the correct 
form under R1435, it would be a Blot. This is still a Blot, regardless of 
whether it has been 'executed.' So then, for example, I have a # of Blots 
= to the # of messages in that form that I have? Well, have where? In my 
mailbox? In some platonic mailbox? But then again, R1435 says a Player 
'may be said' to have a # of Blots = to something else entirely. Thus, a 
contradiction. Now, I'm not saying that this interpretation of a Blot as 
a message is correct, merely that is is highly unclear and ambiguous in 
the Rules.

R1596 never says that the *only* way a P.O. can be executed is for a 
player with the authority to post it to the Public Forum. Thus, except 
for one small point, I would be inclined to judge that R408, by assigning 
a penalty of 3 Blots to a crime, implicitly executes a P.O. for that 
amount. The problem, though (among many others I'm sure will be brought 
up over that point), is that a Blot "is to be executed by whomever is 
required to report the change in Blots." Thus, the CotC. So, as amazingly 
unclear as the situation is, it does appear that the CotC was required to 
'execute' the Blot/P.O.'s by 'post[ing] the Order to the Public Forum.'

So did he? *Yes.*

Why do I have a feeling this is going to be appealed? Anyway, here's why.

Here's what the CotC said: "Blob commits the Infraction of Failing to 
Judge, an action which bears the penalty of 3 Blots."

A Blot has been defined in the rules. Thus, this sentence is equivalent 

Blob action which bears the penalty of 3 Payment Orders for 
1 Indulgence, the payees of which are the Bank. In my opinion, this 
"specifies exactly one source entity, exactly one destination entity, 
exactly one Currency, and a number of units of that Currency which is a 
positive multiple of that Currency's MUQ." 

The syntax and meaning of a 'penalty' makes it clear that Blob is the 
source entity, and the rest is clear.

The message concerning Elde was phrased identically. elJefe's was phrased 

"elJefe receives 3 Blots committing the Infraction of Failing to Judge."

So elJefe receives 3 P.O.'s? This syntax would seem to indicate that 
elJefe is the pay*ee* of this transaction! But the Bank is already 
defined as the payee, by the definition of a Blot. So this does *not* 
specify exactly one source entity and one destination entity. Thus, the 
CotC *did* fail to execute the required P.O. for the 3rd infraction. 
However, as the statement of the CFJ alleges that the CotC failed in all 
*3* cases, it must be judged FALSE.

A possible objection would be that R1435 specifies what it means to 'gain 
some # of Blots.' That is quite true -- it means that a P.O. shall be 
executed. But the P.O. was *not* executed, as R1435 does not mention 
anything about *messages* stating that players gain Blots, only about 
*Rules* which so state.

So my judgement is FALSE, CFJ 940 be damned. I have "considered game 
custom, commonsense, past Judgements, and the best interests of the game 
before applying other standards." I personally think CFJ 940 was judged 
incorrectly; however, that is irrelevant here. I'm under no obligation to 
abide by past incorrect judgements. :) What a welcome back to Agora!