==============================  CFJ 1265  ==============================

    The Justiciar is required by the Rules to act in some way in
    response to the Call for Judgement earlier in this email.

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

Caller:                                 Wes

Judge:                                  Kelly
Judgement:                              DISMISS

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

History:

Called by Wes:                          05 Feb 2001 02:08:02 GMT
Assigned to Kelly:                      05 Feb 2001 03:10:17 GMT
Dismissed by Kelly:                     11 Feb 2001 01:15:28 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

While Rule 1831 quite plainly states that the Justiciar is required
to perform the duties of the Clerk of the Courts with respect to
the CFJ earlier in this email, there is a complication. Rule 991
plainly states that a CFJ is requested by submitting text to the
Clerk of the Courts who is then required to act upon it. Rule 991
makes no allowances for alternate methods of requesting a Call for
Judgement. Furthermore, Rule 991 has a Power of 2 while Rule 1831
has a Power of 1, thus Rule 991 plainly takes precedence.

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

Caller's Evidence:

The email in question:


m: "Wes Contreras" <wesc@antitribu.com>
To: "nom-business" <agora-business@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au>
Subject: BUS: Two CFJ's - one for the Justiciar
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 18:08:02 -0800
Message-ID: <MAEIIGCBCADAEBIOANFGOEGACGAA.wesc@antitribu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300
Importance: Normal
Sender: owner-agora-business@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au

We Call for Judgement on the following Statement and "file it
with the Justiciar":

"Clerk of the Courts Wes has failed to perform eir duty to distribute
CFJ 1263 in a timely manner."

Arguments:

This CFJ will be trivially FALSE, as we selected a Judge and sent
the test of the CFJ to the Public Forum within a matter of minutes
of the CFJ hitting a Public Forum. However, we needed a target for
our next CFJ so that we could address a somewhat more concrete
example.

Note:

We recommend that the Justiciar post to the Public Forum that this
CFJ is assigned to loh. We will be doing the same. As our next
action should make evident, there is at least some small doubt as to
who is required to make this assignment.

-------------

We then Call for Judgement on the following Statement:

"The Justiciar is required by the Rules to act in some way in
response to the Call for Judgement earlier in this email."

Arguments:

While Rule 1831 quite plainly states that the Justiciar is required
to perform the duties of the Clerk of the Courts with respect to
the CFJ earlier in this email, there is a complication. Rule 991
plainly states that a CFJ is requested by submitting text to the
Clerk of the Courts who is then required to act upon it. Rule 991
makes no allowances for alternate methods of requesting a Call for
Judgement. Furthermore, Rule 991 has a Power of 2 while Rule 1831
has a Power of 1, thus Rule 991 plainly takes precedence.

Evidence:

Rule 991/3 (Power=2)
Invoking Judgement

      Any Player who seeks formal resolution of any dispute pertaining
      to this Nomic shall be permitted to request such by submitting a
      Call for Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts.  For the purpose
      of this and other Rules, the submission of a Call for Judgement
      shall constitute proof of the existence of a dispute.

      Any document submitted to the Clerk of the Courts and which is
      clearly marked as a Call for Judgement is a Call for Judgement.

      The Clerk shall distribute the text of a Call for Judgement,
      along with any additional material submitted by the Caller
      (including, but not limited to, Arguments and Evidence) not
      later than the time e announces the identity of the first Judge
      assigned to Judge it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 1831/0 (Power=1)
Filing a CFJ with the Justiciar

      A CFJ alleging that the Clerk of the Courts has failed to
      perform a duty of eir Office may, at the Caller's option, be
      filed with the Justiciar, who shall then perform all the duties
      of the Clerk of the Courts with respect to that CFJ.



---
Wes Contreras        "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
wesc@antitribu.com                        -- Albert Einstein

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 991/3 (Power=2)
Invoking Judgement

      Any Player who seeks formal resolution of any dispute pertaining
      to this Nomic shall be permitted to request such by submitting a
      Call for Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts.  For the purpose
      of this and other Rules, the submission of a Call for Judgement
      shall constitute proof of the existence of a dispute.

      Any document submitted to the Clerk of the Courts and which is
      clearly marked as a Call for Judgement is a Call for Judgement.

      The Clerk shall distribute the text of a Call for Judgement,
      along with any additional material submitted by the Caller
      (including, but not limited to, Arguments and Evidence) not
      later than the time e announces the identity of the first Judge
      assigned to Judge it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 1831/0 (Power=1)
Filing a CFJ with the Justiciar

      A CFJ alleging that the Clerk of the Courts has failed to
      perform a duty of eir Office may, at the Caller's option, be
      filed with the Justiciar, who shall then perform all the duties
      of the Clerk of the Courts with respect to that CFJ.

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

Judge Kelly's Arguments:

I dismiss CFJ 1265 on the grounds that its Statement is ambiguously
formed.

The Statement of CFJ 1265 contains an indexical, specifically "this"
(qualifying "message").  It is not an absolute statement.  Yes, the
message to which it is supposed to refer is included as evidence, but
as Judge I am not required to consider "any part of a CFJ other than
the Statement" in formulating my Judgement (Rule 1563).  Since the
indexical term "this" might refer to the message in which the CFJ was
called, the mesasge in which the CFJ was published, or any other
message, I find that this Statement contains an open term and
therefore cannot logically admit to being either TRUE or FALSE, and as
such dismiss the CFJ under Rule 1565(ii).

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