==========================================================================
                               CFJ 1115

  The message I sent to the discussion forum, declaring my presence on
  the recent Proposals 3825 and 3826, was valid at that time.

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

Called by:           Peekee

Judge:               General Chaos
Judgement:           FALSE

Judge selection:

Eligible:            Andre, Chuck, Crito, elJefe, General Chaos, Kolja. A, 
                     lee, Morendil, Murphy, Steve

Not eligible:
Caller:              Peekee
Barred:              -
Had their turn:      Ørjan, Macross, Blob
Already served:      -
Defaulted:           -
By request:          -
On Hold:             Ørjan

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

History:

  Called by Peekee:                        Wed, 27 Jan 1999 09:49:20 PST
  Assigned to General Chaos:               Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:18:16 +1100
  Judgement FALSE by General Chaos:        Fri, 05 Feb 1999 00:26:11 -0500
  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.

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