==============================  CFJ 1410  ==============================

    The Order executed by RedKnight in the message archived at
    http://www.escribe.com/games/agora-business/m7451.html was
    improperly or invalidly executed.


Caller:                                 root

Judge:                                  Steve
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by root:                         12 Aug 2002 05:08:34 GMT
Assigned to Steve:                      16 Aug 2002 18:20:54 GMT
Judged FALSE by Steve:                  19 Aug 2002 00:40:02 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

In eir message, RedKnight published a single Notice of Infraction that
purported to announce two distinct Infractions, using the phrase
"d) Murphy has not responded to the above COE's."  Note the plural.  By
Rule 1812, a Notice of Infraction contains "d) The action of inaction by
which the Defendant committed the Infraction", a singular offense.  By
this logic, the Notice of Infraction is invalid, and therefore the Order
is invalid by Rule 1796.

Even if the Notice of Infraction is found legal with respect to part d),
it still attempts to announce two distinct Infractions, but it only orders
the penalty for one of them.  Since a valid Notice of Infraction also
contains "e) Whatever Orders are sufficient to impose the penalty for the
Infraction", the Notice of Infraction is also invalid by this argument,
as a single Blot is insufficient to penalize two counts of Delayed COE


Caller's Evidence:

Rule 1812/4 (Power=1)
Notices of Infraction

      If an entity (hereafter the Defendant) commits an Infraction,
      then any Player authorized by the Rules to report the commission
      of that Infraction may announce a Notice of Infraction.  This
      Notice shall explicitly specify the following:

        a) The Infraction that has been committed.
        b) The identity of the Defendant.
        c) The Rule(s) defining that action or inaction as an
        d) The action of inaction by which the Defendant committed the
        e) Whatever Orders are sufficient to impose the penalty for
           the Infraction.

      If a Claim of Error alleging that the Defendant did not commit
      the Infraction is admitted, then the Player who announced the
      Notice of Infraction shall vacate all Orders that e executed to
      impose the penalty for the Infraction.

Rule 1796/0 (Power=1)
Validity of Orders

      All Orders executed in the manner prescribed by the Rules for
      their class and type are presumed valid and enforceable until
      proven otherwise by CFJ.

      In order to be proven valid by CFJ, the Rules must permit the
      Player who executed the Order in question to execute such an
      Order, that the execution of the Order must have been required
      by or permitted in the circumstances which existed at the time
      it was executed, and that the Order has not been rendered
      invalid by the operation of any other Rule.

      Furthermore, no Order may act to prevent or hinder its own
      appeal in any way, and any portion of an Order which has this
      effect is void and without force.

Rule 1431/15 (Power=1)
Claims of Error

      A Claim of Error is a public message to the effect that a
      specific public communication misrepresents the actual Game
      State, and documenting the nature of the error.

      A Response to a Claim of Error posting publicly either a denial
      of the Claim or an admission of the Claim. If the Claim is
      admitted, then the Player making the admission is required to
      post a corrected version of the relevant portion of the message
      which was in error, before one week passes from the time the
      Claim of Error was made. A Player who admits a Claim but does
      not publish a correction is deemed not to have Responded to that

      A Response must be provided by the Player who is required by the
      Rules to publish the information subject to a Claim within one
      week of the Claim being made, unless any of the following holds:
       * a previous Claim was made concerning the same error
       * the relevant message has been posted more than 21 days before
       * another message by the same Player has corrected the error
       * the Claim is in dispute

      A Player who fails to post a Response within the allotted time
      commits the Class 1 Infraction of Delayed COE Response, to be
      reported by the Player who posted the Claim. A Player who
      incorrectly issues a denial of a Claim commits the Crime of
      Wrongful COE Denial, a Class 1 Crime, unless e then admits the
      Claim within 72 hours after the incorrect denial.

RedKnight's Notice of Infraction:

From: "David Locke" <redwallknight@hotmail.com>
To: agora-business@agoranomic.org
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 23:16:04 -0600
Subject: BUS: Notice of Infraction

At Sun, 28 Jul 2002 22:49:00 -0600 I wrote:
Subscribe or unsubscribe from backup lists:
<majordomo@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> "help" in body of message
COE: Type "subscribe nomic" (excluding quotes) in message.
<majordomo@listserver.tue.nl> "help" in body of message (unconfirmed)
COE: Type "subscribe agora" (excluding quotes) in message.
I know the first one works and I think that is what finaly worked for me on
the second list.
From R.1812
a) The Class 1 Infraction of Delayed COE Response.
b) Murphy.
c) R.1431.
d) Murphy has not responded to the above COE's.
e) Per R.1505 I order the Herald to assess Murphy a 1 Blot penalty.
If you had made the acquiring of ignorance the study of your life, you
could not have graduated with higher honor than you could today.
-- Mark Twain (from "How I Edited an Agricultural Paper")


Judge Steve's Arguments:

I dislike the idea that the validity or invalidity of an Order can
depend on a slip as simple as the one made by RedKnight here. I'm
therefore reluctant to accept the Caller's arguments unless forced to it
by the Rules. In this case, I do not think the Rules force me to accept
the Caller's argument.

It's true that Murphy committed two instances of the Infraction of
Delayed COE Response, but I don't think that this forces us to conclude
that RedKnight attempted to cite Murphy for both of them. As RedKnight
has pointed out, parts (a) and (e) of the Notice of Infraction are both
phrased in the singular. The balance of the evidence therefore seems to
be that only one citation was intended, and the Order in (e) is
sufficient to impose the penalty for a single commission of the