-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
/
Copy path1114
209 lines (165 loc) · 9.37 KB
/
1114
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
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
==========================================================================
CFJ 1114
The message I sent to the discussion forum, declaring my presence on
the recent Proposals 3825 and 3826, is valid.
==========================================================================
Called by: Peekee
Judge: Blob
Judgement: FALSE
Judge selection:
Eligible: Andre, Blob, Chuck, Crito, elJefe, General Chaos,
Kolja. A, lee, Morendil, Murphy, Steve
Not eligible:
Caller: Peekee
Barred: -
Had their turn: Ørjan, Macross
Already served: -
Defaulted: -
By request: -
On Hold: Ørjan
==========================================================================
History:
Called by Peekee: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 08:45:07 PST
Assigned to Blob: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:17:32 +1100
Judged FALSE by Blob: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 16:17:13 +1100
Judgement published: as of this message
==========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
Firstly the Vote Collector of these Proposals received my declaration
through the discussion forum. Thus satisfying rule 1715. However rule
1764 states that,
"Any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding, the casting of
any votes, or the declaration of Presence, by Voting Entities
on Proposals, Elections or Referenda, may only be achieved by
sending a message to the Public Forum."
And by this rule 1764 would take precedence over rule 1715. Only for
reasons of if the vote was valid by who it was received by. However I
believe that rule 1764 by the virtue of allowing or disallowing votes,
changes whether or not a proposal has met Quorum.
Now rule 1715 also states that,
"This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which determine
Quorum or whether a Proposal, Election or Referendum has met
Quorum."
And so by this rule 1717 takes precedence over rule 1764, causing a
contradiction.
Now considering Rule 1030
If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one
another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence.
If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of
itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or
takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such
provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining
precedence.
If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their
precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for
determining precedence relations, then the determinations of
the precedence determining Rule shall supercede the numerical
method for determining precedence.
If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another
or defer to one another, then the numerical method again
governs.
In this case I believe the last paragraph comes into force, and so rule
1715 takes precedence over rule 1764 for all contradictions between the
two rules. In particular a declaration of presence is valid if sent to
the collector of votes for a given proposal, and so does not necessarily
have to be sent to a public forum.
Secondly, if for whatever reason the argument above does not hold,
making declaration valid only if sent to a public forum. I believe that
my message did satisfy being sent to a public forum. For the following
reasons
Rule 478 states
Sending a message, by any medium or combination of media, to
every Active Player, is equivalent to sending it to the Public
Forum, provided that the message bears a clear indication that
it is intended to be a message to the Public Forum, and it is
verifiable that the message was in fact sent to every Active
Player.
I believe that my declaration was sent to every active player, and also
that this is verifiable. Also as (for the reasons of the above argument
failing) such a message has to be sent to a public forum to be valid.
This would give a clear indication that it was indeed intended for a
public forum.
Further evidence also suggests that people though the message was
intended for a public forum. People not realizing themselves that it
had been sent to public forum told me that the message should be posted
to a public forum. Surely they would not tell me to send the message
to a public forum, if it was not clear to them that it was intended to
be sent to a public forum.
Also note that nearly all declarations such as the one I sent arrive at
a public forum (sooner or later). This would also suggest that my
message was intended for a public forum.
==========================================================================
Judge's Arguments:
[This is a joint opinion, authored by Blob and General Chaos, to apply
to both CFJ 1114 and CFJ 1115. We are of the opinion that the
Statements of both CFJs are, for all intents and purposes, equivalent.]
With respect to Peekee's first argument that R1715 claims to take
precedence over R1764, we are presented with the issue of interpreting
the clause:
This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which determine Quorum
or whether a Proposal, Election or Referendum has met Quorum.
Now Peekee argues that R1764 affects whether a Proposal has met Quorum,
and thus falls under this clause. Now strictly speaking he may be
correct. The existence of R1764 may affect the validity of certain
messages purporting to be votes or declarations of presence, which in
turn could affect whether a given proposal achieves Quorum; but the
argument need not stop there. By this reasoning, Rule 1715 takes
precedence over Rule 1664, to choose a rule arbitrarily, because the
guidelines as to whether or not a Rebellion succeeds may affect the
number of Indulgences a Player has, which may affect whether he becomes
Lawless, which in turn may affect the number of Players registered at
the time a Proposal is distributed, which will determine Quorum for that
Proposal. To argue, on this basis, that Rule 1715 takes precedence over
Rule 1664 is clearly nonsense.
And so we must draw a line with regard to how long a chain of causality
we are going to use to determine the meaning of precedence statements
like that in Rule 1715. Another possible interpretation of this case is
to say that Rules 879 and 1715 alone determine Quorum in this instance,
and that Rule 1764 merely affects the circumstances which these rules
use to make this determination. We judge that this is also a valid,
common-sense interpretation of the Rules, and is in the best interests
of the game. It avoids endless complexity in the determination of
precedence between rules.
By this reasoning, the precedence clause of Rule 1715 cannot be applied
to Rule 1764, so the latter, by its own claims, takes precedence, and so
Peekee's first argument is incorrect.
With respect to Peekee's second argument, that a message that attempts
to declare Presence on a Proposal by its own nature contains, by its own
nature a "clear indication" of the intent that that message be a Public
Forum Message, requires us to interpret Rule 478's "alternative media"
paragraph, and specifically what is necessary for a message to "bear a
clear indication that it is intended to be a message to the Public
Forum".
Peekee argues that, because declarations of Presence must legally be
posted to a Public Forum to be effective, any Player who communicates a
declaration of Presence necessarily intended that that communication be
posted to a Public Forum, even if e did not actually send it to a
designated Public Forum. In short, Peekee asks us to construe Rule
478's alternative media paragragh so as to allow inference of intent
from conduct.
We admit that this reading of Rule 478 is not irrational, and is indeed
not without merit. However, we do not believe that this reading is
compelled by the language of the Rule. We further note that there is
substantial Game Custom already in place that weighs against this
reading. Additionally, we contend that it is against the best interest
of the Game to adopt this policy, since Officers are not generally in
the habit of reading the primary discussion forum with any consistent
degree of diligence, and generally operate on the reliance that no
Official communications will be thereby communicated.
We therefore elect to reject Peekee's proposed interpretation. Instead,
we choose to interpret Rule 478's requirement of a "clear indication" as
requiring an explicit declaration that the message is intended to be a
Public Forum message. This interpretation is consistent with the Rule's
text, and further is in harmony with longstanding Game Custom.
Since it is evident that Peekee's message contains no such declaration,
we need not reach the factual questions of whether Peekee actually had
such an intent, or whether the message in question was sent to every
Player.
Because we have ruled that Rule 1764 is successful in requiring
declarations of Presence be sent to a Public Forum, and that Rule 478
requires messages being sent to the Public Forum by distribution to all
Players other than by a designated Public Forum medium bear an explicit
declaration of intent, and have found that Peekee's message lacked such
a declaration, we conclude that the Statements of CFJs 1114 and 1115 are
both FALSE.
==========================================================================