1078

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

CFJ 1078 

     "Morendil violated Rule 1729 by voting on Proposal 3640 in the 
      Public Forum." 

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

Judge:       Blob
Judgement:   TRUE

Justices:    elJefe (C), Gen. Chaos (J), Oerjan (pro-S) Decision:

Eligible:    Crito, elJefe, Gen Chaos, Harlequin, Kieron,
             Kolja A., Michael, Murphy, Oerjan, Swann

Ineligible:  Blob (judge) 
Caller:      Steve
Barred:      Morendil
On request:  Chuck (thru 11 Jan)
On hold:     Andre, Vir

======================================================================
Injunction by Judge Blob:

By the power invested in me, by Rule 908, I hereby issue an Injunction that
Morendil submit a Formal Apology using the following Proscribed Words:

Insanity, inanity, profanity, calamity, Yosemite, perimetry, gee, I'm, a, tree! 

======================================================================
History: 

  Called by Steve, 6 Jan 1998 13:34:49 +1100 
  Assigned to Blob, 6 Jan 1998 08:30:35 +0000 
  Judged TRUE, with Injunction, 8 Jan 1998 14:02:46 +1100 
  Appealed by Morendil, 8 Jan 1998 12:26:45 +0100 
  Injunction appealed by Morendil, 8 Jan 1998 12:26:45 +0100 
  Appeal of Injunction: Assigned to Justices Oerjan, elJefe, and 
    Gen. Chaos, 10 Jan 1998 17:18:20 +0000 
  Injunction upheld by Oerjan, 14 Jan 1998 20:49:55 +0100 
  Injunction upheld by Gen. Chaos, 16 Jan 1998 14:33:26 -0500 
  Injunction upheld by elJefe, 17 Jan 1998, 09:07:57 +0000 

======================================================================
Caller's Arguments: 

Firstly the facts. These are as follows: 

Proposal 3640 was an Insane Proposal. R1729 ('Insanity') states that: 

      For such a Proposal, until the Voting Period has ended:
      there shall be no discussing Votes, or this Rule has been
         bended.
      Nor shall a Player Vote in public, only to Assessor.
      The Votes shall be unknown to others, even employer and
         professor.

On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:55:40 +0100, Morendil sent a message to the Public Forum
voting on P3640. In a message dated Tue, 23 Dec 1997 13:57:25 +0100, and also
sent to the Public Forum, Morendil subsequently retracted these votes (see the
Evidence attached for both messages).

There are a number of points I think it worth bringing to the attention of the
Judge. Firstly, the matter of the Public Voting Experiment. R1749, in force at
the time, stated that:

      Any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding, the casting of
      any votes by Voting Entities on Proposals, Elections or
      Referenda, may only be achieved by sending a message to the
      Public Forum.

Was there a conflict between Rules 1729 and 1749, a conflict which R1749 would
have won in virtue of its precedence claim? I argue that there was no conflict.
R1749 made it impossible to vote without sending a message to the PF; R1729
merely makes it illegal to vote by sending a message to the PF. The result is
clear and achieved without conflict between the Rules: no Player could legally
vote on P3640. A Player could, however, vote illegally on P3640 by sending a
message to the PF, violating the stricture in R1729 that Players shall not vote
in public on Insane Proposals. This is what I argue Morendil did.

Secondly, we can quickly dismiss the matter of R1729's use of the word 'bended'.
Although it is an interesting question whether there is a distinction recognized
by Agoran law between breaking the rules and merely bending them, that question
is not relevant here. The 'bending' of R1729 arises in reference to the
*discussion* of votes on Insane Proposals, not the act of voting itself. As far
as that act is concerned, R1729 is crystal clear in prohibiting public voting on
Insane Proposals, when it says "Nor shall a Player vote in public, only to
Assessor. / The Votes shall be unknown to others, even employer and professor."

Finally, there is the question of Morendil's retraction of his votes. Does this
save him from having violated R1729? I do not think so. I argue that the Rules
can distinguish between a case in which a Player first votes and then retracts
his vote, and a case in which a Player does not vote at all. The fact that
Morendil subsequently retracted his vote does not make it any less true that he
had earlier voted, in violation of R1729.

======================================================================
Judge's Arguments: 

I concur with the Steve's argument in calling this judgement. Morendil has
clearly violated rule 1729. I have little to add to the points Steve has already
made.

I will say that if, when a player retracts eir vote, e really has not voted at
all, then this makes for a very complicated interpretation of such rules as 452.
How is the Vote Collector to know in advance which voting messages are actually
votes, and which are not? A much more sensible interpretation, and, I believe,
the one shown by strong game custom, is that all such messages are indeed
"votes", at least for a time.

With regard to Morendil's intention at the time of voting, I notice that Rule
1575 only pardons those who were ignorant of the Crimes they were committing.
[Aside: why is that paragraph in there twice?] As this case is a plain rule
violation, and not a Crime, this consideration does not apply.

As I think it is beyond reasonable doubt that Morendil violated rule 1729, I
hereby judge this statement to be TRUE.

======================================================================
Evidence presented by Caller: 

----- 1. Morendil's original voting message 

  Message-Id: 199712180955.kaa0454-@logatome.micronet.fr
  Comments: Authenticated sender is morendi-@mail.micronet.fr
  From: "Laurent Bossavit" morendi-@micronet.fr
  To: agora-busines-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:55:40 +0100
> Subject: BUS: Morendil's Votes on 3639-3641
>
> > Proposal 3639 (Harlequin)  AI = 1  (Disinterested)
> > Infect Rule 1605
>
> AGAINST.
>
> > Proposal 3640 (Harlequin)  AI = 1
> > FULL FRONTAL LOBOTOMY
>
> First vote FOR; second vote AGAINST.
>
> > Proposal 3641 (Kolja A.)  AI = 1  (Disinterested)
>
> No Vote yet.
>
> Recap (not additional Votes) :
>
>  3  3  3
>  6  6  6
>  3  4  4
>  9  0  1
>
>  A FA
>
> Disclaimer : announcing a Vote on 3640 may or may
> not be effective in casting a Vote, and irrespective
> of that it may or may not be a violation of Rule
> 1729 - my attempt at such a Move makes no representation
> as to the legality of it.
>
>
> =====================================================
> Laurent Bossavit
> NetDIVE Paris offices                       (o o)
> --------------------------------     -oOO--(~)--OOo-
> http://www.netdive.com/
> NetDIVE: the leader in Web chat & Internet Communication technologies
>                 Communicate better, Communicate Cheaper
> =====================================================

----- 2. Morendil retraction message

> Message-Id: 199712231257.naa1867-@logatome.micronet.fr
> Comments: Authenticated sender is morendi-@mail.micronet.fr
> From: "Laurent Bossavit" morendi-@micronet.fr
> To: agora-busines-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 13:57:25 +0100
> Subject: BUS: Morendil's Vote on 3640
>
> H. Assessor, please note : I hereby cancel, rescind, annul and recall
> both of my Votes on Proposal 3640. (In other words, I'm not voting
> on that Proposal any more).
>
>
> =====================================================
> Laurent Bossavit
> NetDIVE Paris offices                       (o o)
> --------------------------------     -oOO--(~)--OOo-
> http://www.netdive.com/
> NetDIVE: the leader in Web chat & Internet Communication technologies
>                 Communicate better, Communicate Cheaper
> ===================================================== 

======================================================================
Appellant's Arguments:

I hereby call for the Appeal of this Injunction, on the grounds that "I'm" and
"tree!" are not single words. :-P

======================================================================
Decision of pro-Speaker Oerjan: UPHOLD

This Justice determines, in agreement with fellow Justice ElJefe's argument,
that the Injunction was legal and appropriate given the situation, and should be
sustained.

======================================================================
Decision of the CotC:  UPHOLD

I judge this Injunction legal and appropriate, as it appears on its face to
satisfy the requirements of Rule 908.

"I'm" is a contraction, which is a gray area for "words".  One common-sense
sufficiency test for being a word seems to be indivisibility, namely whether the
text could be divided into smaller parts that could stand on their own.  "I'm"
cannot be so divided, and I would say that it counts as a word.

In passing, I note that though "tree!" may not be a word, "tree" is, and the "!"
could be taken as the terminator of the Judge's sentence rather than part of a
Prescribed Word.  An apology that included "tree" but not the string "tree!"
would probably satisfy the injunction.

As for appropriateness, it is an old tradition of Agora to impose such
conditions upon Public Apologies.  I wish Morendil well in composing his.

======================================================================
Decision of the Justiciar: UPHOLD 

In the matter of the appeal of the Injunction attached to CFJ 1078, I join the
published opinion of my colleague elJefe in finding that the Injunction is
proper and appropriate.

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