==============================  CFJ 1243  ==============================

    Chuck is ineligible to serve as a Justice in the Appeal of CFJ 1237.

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

Caller:                                 Steve

Judge:                                  Wes
Judgement:                              TRUE

Appeal:                                 1243a
Decision:                               REVERSE

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

History:

Called by Steve:                        22 Aug 2000 01:55:42 GMT
Assigned to Wes:                        22 Aug 2000 21:59:00 GMT
Judged TRUE by Wes:                     25 Aug 2000 07:10:04 GMT
Appealed by Andre:                      25 Aug 2000 09:34:40 GMT
Appealed by Crito:                      25 Aug 2000 13:59:22 GMT
Appealed by Maud:                       25 Aug 2000 17:57:53 GMT
Appeal 1243a:                           25 Aug 2000 17:57:53 GMT
Appealed by Oerjan:                     25 Aug 2000 23:31:35 GMT
Appealed by Kelly:                      26 Aug 2000 15:03:54 GMT
REVERSED on Appeal:                     08 Oct 2000 15:05:37 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

I don't intend to argue for a specific Judgement, only to lay before the
Judge the facts and relevant Rules for em to interpret.

It's clear from the evidence above that Chuck's attempt to make himself
ineligible occurred well after CFJ 1237 was called, since it occurred
concurrently with Chuck's Appeal of the CFJ.

Concerning the selection of Justices, Rule 911(iv) states that:

      A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is
      true:

       iv) E was not eligible to Judge the CFJ that resulted in the
           matter under consideration when it was called, and this
           restriction does not prevent three eligible Players from
           being selected by the CotC for the Board.

As Øjan has pointed out, Chuck was eligible to serve as the Judge of
CFJ 1237 at the time it was called (more accurately, he was not
ineligible by reason other than that of having had his turn, which does
not make him ineligible to serve as Justice). So Chuck does not meet the
criteria for ineligiblity to serve as a Justice in R911.

However, R911 does not claim to set out necessary and sufficient
conditions for eligibility to serve as a Justice. It gives only
sufficient conditions. The possibility remains open that other Rules
might make Chuck ineligible to serve as Justice in the Appeal of CFJ
1237.

The obvious place to look is Rule 1567 (Making Oneself Ineligible to
Judge a CFJ):

      A Player makes emself ineligible to be the Judge of a specific
      CFJ or type of CFJ by transmitting a notice to the Clerk of the
      Courts, specifying the CFJ or type of CFJ for which e wishes to
      be made ineligible.  Such a notice remains in effect until the
      Player informs the Clerk of the Courts that it is no longer in
      effect.

Does making oneself ineligible to Judge a CFJ include making oneself
ineligible to serve as a Justice in the Appeal of that CFJ? If so, then
we can read R1567 as adding to the possible ways listed in R911 that a
Player can be ineligible to to be a Justice.

I was initially tempted to reduce this question to a simpler one: is a
Justice a kind of Judge? But on reflection, I think that would be an
oversimplification. The relationship between being a Judge and being a
Justice is very complex. For some Rules (eg, R451, R217) it is important
that we interpret the word "Judge" as including Justices in its scope.
Other Rules clearly treat Judges and Justices differenty where Salaries
and timing of Judgements are concerned. So instead of asking the simple
question, we should ask: is a Justice a kind of Judge *for a particular
set of purposes*? I leave it to the Judge of the this CFJ to decide for
emself whether e thinks that a Justice is a kind of Judge for the
purposes of deciding ineligibility.

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

Caller's Evidence:

<http://www.escribe.com/games/agora-business/m952.html>


> From: Charles E. Carroll
> Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 08:53:29
>
> I too call for the appeal of CFJ 1237, but with different arguments
> than those that Murphy gave.
>
> I also make myself ineligible to judge CFJ 1237.

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

Judge Wes's Arguments:

Our Arguments in this case are very simple.

We start by rejecting the idea that a Justice is in any way a Judge. A
Justice is one of the three Players on a Board of Appeals, per Rule
911. A Judge is the Player assigned to return a Judgement upon a Call
for Judgement, per Rule 1868. The relationship between the two is
strictly defined.

On August 1, 2000, Chuck successfully made emself ineligible to be a
Judge for CFJ 1237, per Rule 1567. On the other hand, Rule 1567 had
absolutely no effect on eir eligibility as a Justice. None at all.
Of course, there was already a Judge for CFj 1237, so this wasn't a
big deal. On the other hand, maybe a new Judge would have to be
selected at some point, and that newly selected Judge could not be
Chuck.

But wait! Rule 911 says that if you can't be a Judge, then you can't
be a Justice. But the timing gets interesting. Rule 911 says that e
is ineligible if "E was not eligible to Judge the CFJ that resulted
in the matter under consideration when it was called". When what was
called? Well, the general rule of pronouns is that it refers to the
most recent instance of a qualifying object. In this case, that would
be "the matter under consideration", i.e. the Appeal.

Our opinion is that if a Player is not eligible to be a Judge at the
time the Appeal is called, then e is not eligible to be a Justice on
that Appeal. Since Chuck was definitely not eligible to be a Judge at
the time the Appeal of CFJ 1237 was called, e was not eligible to be
a Justice.

We therefore return a Judgement of TRUE.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Andre:

[actual date unknown]

Failed Attempt at a Dissenting Opinion:

[Clerk's Note: Although the Application stated that this Dissenting
Opinion would apply to CFJ 943, we are including it with this CFJ due
to it's apparent relevance in spite of absolutely no legal obligation
to do so. The Application was unfortunately invalid, due to CFJ 943
having been distributed significantly more than seven days prior to
this Application. It is our informed belief that Andre's intentions
with regards to this Application were to have it apply to this CFJ,
but was unsuccessful in doing so.]

type of the application: Application to Submit an Opinion
CFJ to which it applies: CFJ 943
label: Dissenting Opinion
Judgement/Dismissal to which it applies: Judgement by the Judge
Reasons and Arguments:

> But wait! Rule 911 says that if you can't be a Judge, then you can't
> be a Justice. But the timing gets interesting. Rule 911 says that e
> is ineligible if "E was not eligible to Judge the CFJ that resulted
> in the matter under consideration when it was called". When what was
> called? Well, the general rule of pronouns is that it refers to the
> most recent instance of a qualifying object. In this case, that would
> be "the matter under consideration", i.e. the Appeal.

We reject the reading that 'it' refers to 'the Appeal of the CFJ'.

In the first place, nowhere do the Rules speak about 'calling an Appeal'.
Thus, there is no 'time when the Appeal was called'. Certainly, the word
is often used unofficially for the 'insistence' as mentioned in Rule 1564.
It is natural to say that Game Custom allows the Rules to call such a thing
'calling for Appeal' without further specifying the meaning. However, the
phrase here is 'calling FOR appeal'. Thus there is no time when an Appeal
is called, only one at which it is called FOR.

Even if we would conflate 'calling Appeal' via 'calling for Appeal' with
'insisting that something is appealed', there is still a problem of timing.
Most CFJs, when appealed, have had at least three such insistances. Thus,
there is again not one time when 'the Appeal was called', but three or even
more such times.

Another point is the meaning of 'the matter under consideration'. The
Judge has taken for granted that this is the Appeal. However, just one
line above, Rule 541 says:

  A Player is ineligible for selection if [...]

        iii) E has been Judge in the matter the Board is to consider.

Now, one cannot have been a Judge of the Appeal. Thus, 'the matter the
Board is to consider' in part (iii) seems to mean 'the CFJ'. This reading,
however, is in contradiction to part (iv), where the CFJ is said to
'result in' the matter under consideration. If we could find a single
reading that causes both to be meaningful, that would be preferable to
using different meanings for almost the same term in different parts of
the same rule. And we think there is such a meaning: "the matter under
consideration" in Rule 911 apparently means "the Judicial process regarding
a single CFJ". Again, this is something which either is not called, or is
called at the time the CFJ is, certainly not at the time someone calls for
Appeal.

In our opinion, any of these arguments would be strong enough to win against
the rule that the Judge quotes, since, in my opinion, this is an 'if there
is no other good reason to believe otherwise' rule - and rather weak even
as such.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Oerjan:

[actual date unknown]

I wish to note that "matter" as it applies to appeals is also found in
Rules 1570, 1564 and 1447, and here it clearly means "what is
(becoming) under Appeal".

Rule 1564 in particular seems to be what defines what a matter is:

      The Judgement entered in any CFJ by its Judge, the grant or
      denial of any Motion, and the execution of any Judicial Order
      are all subject to review on appeal to a Board of Appeal.  In
      addition, a Board of Appeal shall review any claim that a Judge
      has failed to perform any duty of a Judicial nature which e was
      required to perform.

These are the matters, not the CFJ itself or the Judicial process.

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