CFJ 1101

  Rule 1567 should be interpreted such that a Player may only make
  emself ineligible to Judge a CFJ which has already been called.


Judge:        Kolja A.
Justices:     Morendil (J), Michael (C), lee (pro-S)

Judgement:    TRUE

Eligible:     Antimatter, Blob, Chuck, Crito, General Chaos,
              Harlequin, Kolja A., lee, Macross, Michael, Morendil,
              Murphy, Oerjan

(* note an error was made in selecting the initial judge; Antimatter
   and Harlequin were not given a chance of being selected. *)

Not eligible:
Caller:       Steve
Barred:       -
Disqualified: -
On hold:      elJefe, Swann

First Appeal eligibility:
  On Hold:                elJefe, Oerjan, Swann
  Originally ineligible:  Steve
  Judge:                  Kolja A.
  Default justices:       Morendil, Michael

Eligible: Antimatter, Blob, Chuck, Crito, General Chaos, Harlequin,
          lee, Macross, Murphy
(Rolled a six on 0-8 sided dice: selection is lee)

  Called by Steve, Fri, 24 Jul 1998 16:37:14 +1000
  Assigned to Kolja A., Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:05:42 +0100
  Judged TRUE, Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:46:07 +0200
  Published, Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:32:26 +0100
  Appealed by Antimatter, Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:47:03 +0000
  Appealed by Michael, Thu, 30 Jul 1998 09:21:44 +0100
  Appealed by Crito,  Thu, 30 Jul 1998 11:51:39 -0400
  Appeal begins, Wed, 5 Aug 1998 09:29:51 +0100
  lee appointed to Board, Thu, 6 Aug 1998 10:20:49 +0100
  (Board is Michael, Morendil and lee)
  Motion 1 granted, Fri, 7 Aug 1998 12:18:33 +0200
  Morendil OVERTURNS the judgement, Wed, 12 Aug 1998 05:03:45 +0100
  Michael SUSTAINS the judgement, Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:03:41 +0100
  lee SUSTAINS the judgement, Wed, 12 Aug 1998 12:56:21 -0500
  Final decision published, Fri, 14 Aug 1998 09:35:25 +0100


Appelate decisions
Justiciar Morendil:

I hereby overturn Judge's Kolja's decision. I disagree with eir
statement that "a challenge of such custom in a CFJ is enough to
change it". If the origin of a particular custom has some basis in
interpretation of the Rules, then I contend that Rule 217 does not
allow a Judge to return a contradictory Jugement merely because of
personal preference.

I am of the opinion that "specific" and related terms, as used in the
Ruleset and with the meaning that previous Game Custom have imparted
to these terms, do not necessarily imply exact, individual
specification of an existing and narrowly identified entity.

Phrases such as "I hereby ABSTAIN on all Proposals up for Vote",
variously qualified by conditionals such as "if possible", "if I have
not already done so", or "I delegate the Assessorship to whoever is
willing to take it up for a week", have in the past been accepted as
legal. In that context of allowing 'loose' specification, which
sometimes reach absurd extremes, I fail to see why a particular Rule
should be singled out for a different interpretation.

Clerk of the Courts Michael:

I hereby SUSTAIN the decision above.  The rule in question states that
one may exempt oneself from judicial service for a specific CFJ by
specifying that CFJ in a message to the Clerk of the Courts.  I
believe the language requiring the mention of a specific CFJ thereby
requires the request for exemption to be made when that CFJ actually
exists.  A CFJ can only really be said to come into existence when
submitted, as per Rule 991.

pro-Speaker lee:

I hereby SUSTAIN Judge Kolja A.'s ruling.  I find eir reasoning sound
and within the Rules.

I want to add to eir statement a note on logic.  If you make a
statement 'All foo are blue' no foo need exist for this stamen to be
true.  Once you make a statement 'Some foo are blue' then for this to
be true, there must be at least one foo, and at least one foo must be

To say there are some CFJ's that are specific CFJ's where i am
ineligible to judge, the CFJ's would have to exist in order for that
statement to be true.


Original Judgement: TRUE

Reasons and arguments:

The question is not new to me; the practice of making oneself
ineligible to judge all CFJs called in a certain period of time has
always struck me as against the letter of rule 1567. This never
bothered me very much, as I think it is nice to have this
possibility. I consider this an interesting example where game custom
quietly accepted a practice that is against the letter of a rule; I
think that a challenge of such custom in a CFJ is enough reason to
change it and go back to the rules proper.

I hope, however, that noone will advocate changes in past CFJ
assignments that respected ineligibilities illegal under this
CFJ. Anyone who thinks about doing so should have formally challenged
the practice when it was begun.



1. Motion to Annotate:

I hereby file a Motion with the Judge of this CFJ that R1567 be
annotated with a copy of the Statement.  -- Steve


(Caller's) Arguments:

I begin with the general observation that being eligible to Judge a
CFJ is a Nomic property of Players in the sense of R1011, and hence
can only be changed by procedures specified in the Rules. Hence if the
procedure described in R1567 for changing one's eligibility to Judge a
CFJ does not permit Players to make themselves ineligible to Judge
CFJs which have not yet been called (as I contend), then, since no
other Rule specifies such a procedure, that action is simply not
permitted by the Rules at all, and the Statement is TRUE.

The first paragraph of R1567 itself states that:

      A Player makes emself ineligible to be the Judge of a specific
      CFJ by transmitting a notice to the Clerk of the Courts,
      specifying the CFJ for which e wishes to be made ineligible.

Attention should be drawn here to two points about this paragraph. The
first is that it describes a procedure for making oneself ineligible
to Judge 'a specific CFJ'. The second point is that the procedure
described requires the the Player to specify 'the CFJ for which e
wishes to be made ineligible'. I submit that a CFJ which has not yet
been called and hence does not yet exist cannot meet the requirements
of specificity in R1567. "All CFJs called in the next two weeks" does
not name a specific CFJ, for example. Neither does "Any CFJ called by
Chuck in the next month." Even "Any CFJ called by Chuck in the next
three days concerning the interpretation of Rule 1567" does not, I
claim, name a specific CFJ, even if Chuck actually makes a CFJ
matching that description. 'A specific CFJ' can only refer to a CFJ
which already exists in the full particularity of its details: its
text, who called it, and when it was called.