From: Wes Contreras <>
To: agora-off <>
Subject: OFF: CFJ 1170 Judged TRUE
Date: Sunday, October 17, 1999 12:40 PM

                              CFJ 1170

    Players that hold official positions can choose to either accept
    or ignore messages sent to a-d which would require them to note
    an action or carry out an action themselves in the role of their
    official position


Called by:           Peekee

Judge:               Crito
Judgement:           TRUE

Judge selection:

Eligible:            Blob, Chuck, Crito, elJefe, Elysion, harvel,
                     Kolja, Lee, Michael, Murphy, Palnatoke, Wes

Not eligible:
Caller:              Peekee
Barred:              -
Had their turn:      Annabel
Already served:      -
Defaulted:           -
By request:          -
On Hold:             Oerjan, Steve



Called by Peekee:                     25 Sep 1999 12:55:39 EDT
Assigned to Chuck:                    30 Sep 1999 00:56:04 -0700
Re-Assigned to Crito:                 13 Oct 1999 15:35:47 -0700
Judged TRUE by Crito:                 14 Oct 1999 13:44:43 -0400
Judgement Distributed:                As of this message


Caller's Arguments:



Evidence attached by the Caller:



Judge's Arguments:

After careful consideration of the wording of this CFJ, I find I am
forced to return a judgement of TRUE, although not in the sense that
I think the caller originally intended. Players that hold official
positions can choose to ignore messages sent to a-d simply by not
subscribing to the discussion list or any archive of it.

They can choose to accept such messages by subscribing to a-d. The
Rules place an obligation on Players to be connected to the PF, but
not to a-d. Therefore, I hereby judge this statement to be TRUE.

However, speaking to my perceived intent of this CFJ, if an Officer
receives a message via *any* medium and the Rules define an obligation
that attaches to the receipt of such message without specifically
requiring the message to be sent to the PF, then R101, IMO, guarantees
that the obligation is properly imposed and the Officer may not choose
to ignore it.  The problem would become one of proving that the
Officer did, indeed, receive the message. Phone calls and regular
(uncertified) mail would be poor choices, if one is worried about the
Officer's integrity.  OTOH, if an Officer is subscribed to a-d at the
time a message is posted to it, I would consider that adequate proof
that the message was received.