==============================  CFJ 1412  ==============================

    If a player is deregistered and then registers again without there
    being a Win since e was deregistered e returns with the same number
    of points as e had when e was deregistered.


Caller:                                 Peekee

Judge:                                  Steve
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by Peekee:                       07 Sep 2002 12:35:27 GMT
Assigned to Steve:                      16 Sep 2002 04:52:49 GMT
Judged FALSE by Steve:                  19 Sep 2002 02:27:35 GMT
Appealed by RedKnight:                  19 Sep 2002 03:16:12 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

Rule 1929 "Points" reads in part "A Player who has not been Awarded or
Penalized since the last Win has a Score of zero Points.". In the situation
of the CFJ's Statement this does not apply, as such the number of Points the
Player has is not set by the Rules. Considering that other values are
preserved when a Player is deregistered such as Blots and Patent Titles,
Points should also be preserved.


Judge Steve's Arguments:

Peekee poses a difficult hypothetical question, but the argument he
gives is insufficient to answer it. While it is true that some Player
attributes are preserved through deregistration and subsequent
reregistration, other attributes are not. Michael gives the example of
activity level, which is not preserved but rather reset to active
whenever a Player registers or reregisters (see R1016). So there's no
absolutely clear precedent to follow.

How, then, to proceed? I considered examining all the attributes that
Players have - in addition to those attributes already mentioned
(activity level, Stain, and the holding of Patent Titles), we could add
Political Status, Role, Readiness, Currency holdings, Offices, Group and
Contest Membership, etc. - and seeing how these attributes are handled
in the cases of Players returning from a period out of the game. But
immediately I encountered further unclarities in the Rules.

For example, in the case of Roles, R1960 states that "Initially players
do not have any role." But should this be interpreted to mean that all
Players have no Role when they register, or only that Players
registering for the first time have no Role? For another example,
concerning Political status R1840 states that "A new players [sic] is
always Abiding when e becomes a player." Rules 869 and 1677 connect the
concepts of 'New Player' and 'Grace Period', so perhaps we could say
that a 'new Player' is one who has not been registered for over 12
months. But the Statement of the CFJ does not make this distinction, so
one is left wondering about the Political status of Players returning
after less than 12 months away. Finally, even given resolutions of these
questions, it was also unclear to me how to construct the required
analogies. Is a Player's Score more or less like eir Currency holdings
than eir Political status?

These difficulties in determining, as it were, what game custom might be
and how it might be applied, led me to pursue another line of inquiry,
that of the best interests of the game. Here I think I have found more
traction on these slippery issues. I propose the general following
principle as being in the best interests of the game:

      In order to meet obligations imposed on em by the Rules, no Player
      should need access to records that the Rules do not require
      someone to maintain.

I think it is clear that the best interests of the game are served by
observance of this principle. It protects Players from having
intolerable demands made of them where recordkeeping is concerned, and
it secures clarity of the game state, which is of benefit to all.

It's worth noting that the two cases mentioned by Peekee in eir Caller's
Arguments accord with the principle, for in both the case of Blots and
of Patent Titles, the Rules specifically require some Player to keep
records concerning former Players (in fact, the same Player in each
case, namely, the Herald: see R1377).

It's also worth noting that the principle can help us to resolve the
other difficulties mentioned earlier concerning Roles and Political
status. In both cases, we discover that that the Registrar is required
to keep track only of the Roles and Political Status of Players, not of
former Players (see R1960, R1840). Accordingly, I would interpret R1960
as saying that Players returning from a period of deregistration do not
have any Role, and R1840 as saying that Players returning from less than
12 months' deregistration are Abiding.

Finally, after this extensive tour, we can return to our starting point
and consider the case of a Player's Score. R1928 requires the
Scorekeepor to maintain the Score of each *registered* Player; no
provision is made for maintaining the Scores of former Players in the
event they should return to the game before another Win has occurred. I
conclude that a Player's Score is not preserved when e deregisters. Upon
reregistration, eir Score should be set to zero just as though e were
registering for the first time.

The Statement is therefore FALSE.


Appellant RedKnight's Arguments:

I feel that Judge Steve, in his arguments, did not take the appropriate
rules (the rules about points) into account.  E has therefore
reinterpreted the rules instead of going by what the rules actually say.