==============================  CFJ 1276  ==============================

    An entity is a Player if, and only if, the Rules cannot distinguish
    that entity from a Player.

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

Caller:                                 G.

Judge:                                  Lindrum
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by G.:                           19 Feb 2001 20:07:27 GMT
Assigned to Lindrum:                    25 Feb 2001 20:26:00 GMT
Judged FALSE by Lindrum:                04 Mar 2001 15:57:39 GMT

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

Judge Lindrum's Arguments:

If it follows from the Rules that a particular entity is not a
Player, then the Rules can certainly distinguish that entity from a Player.
 But nothing much follows from the Rules themselves about who is, or is
not, a Player.  For example: Rule 869 states that a non-Player person may
become a Player by sending a message to a public forum, but Rule 869 by
itself does not entail that any particular entity is or is not a Player.
That Goethe is a Player, for example, doesn't follow from Rule 869.  It
follows rather from the conjunction of Rule 869 with certain statements of
fact that Rule 869 deems relevant; facts in this case about what has been
posted in the public forum, and by whom.  So, in accordance with the
interpretation adopted in Murphy's Judgement on CFJ 1275, I take the
statement in CFJ 1276 on which I have been asked to Judge to amount to this:

(*) An entity is a Player if and only if it doesn't follow from the Rules
in conjunction with the relevant statements of fact, that that entity is
not a player.

This statement is the conjunction of two conditionals:

(A)  If an entity is a Player, then it doesn't follow from the Rules in
conjunction with the relevant statements of fact that that entity is not a
Player.

and

(B)  If it doesn't follow from the Rules in conjunction with the relevant
statements of fact that an entity is not a Player, then that entity is a
Player.

Statement (A) is clearly true, so the truth value of statement (*)
coincides with the truth value of (B).

Rule 869 describes one way that an entity may become a Player.  Rule 869
does not say that this is the only way that an entity may become a Player.
The Rules are silent on the question of whether any entities that are not
persons are Players, and whether any persons who have never posted to a
public forum requesting registration are Players.  For example: Bill
Clinton has never posted to a public forum requesting registration.  Hence
it doesn't follow from the Rules in conjunction with the relevant
statements of fact that Bill Clinton is a Player. But neither does it
follow from the Rules in conjunction with the relevant statements of fact
that Bill Clinton is not a Player.

The Rules are silent on the issue of whether or not (B) is true.  Rule 217
states that in such circumstances "the Judge shall consider game custom,
commonsense, past Judgements, and the best interests of the game before
applying other standards".  These considerations make it clear that (B),
and hence (*), should be judged FALSE.  There is clearly a well-established
custom in the Game of Agora of taking Rule 869 to describe the only way
becoming a Player, despite the fact that the Rules do not explicitly state
that this is so.  It is, in other words, a well-established custom in the
game that an entity does not count as a Player simply in virtue of the fact
that the Rules are silent as to whether or not that entity is a Player.  So
the statement on which I've been asked to judge is FALSE.

This Judgement is also in accordance with commonsense and the best
interests of the Game.  For if the statement on which I've been asked to
Judge were judged TRUE, it would follow that Bill Clinton is a Player.  It
would also follow that the Eiffel Tower and the square root of three are
Players.  But such conclusions are an affront to commonsense and would lead
to chaos. The statement is FALSE.

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