==============================  CFJ 1491  ==============================

    CFJ's 1482 to 1487 are not valid CFJ's, as the text was never
    submitted to the CotC.


Caller:                                 Cainech

Judge:                                  Pakaran

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by Cainech:                      15 Feb 2004 16:50:03 GMT
Assigned to Pakaran:                    15 Feb 2004 18:36:43 GMT
Pakaran recused:                        22 Feb 2004 20:28:19 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         19 Mar 2004 05:56:35 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     19 Mar 2004 16:29:37 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

"Submit" is not defined in any rule, so we fall onto R754 sub-section 5,
legal definitions.  To submit something to the court is either to present it
directly to the court, or in a forum recognised by that court.  Under R478,
a rule is not public unless a rule states that it is public.  As such, it
appears that orders sent to agora discussion are not submitted to anyone.
On the other hand, if submission can be taken to be announcement, then R478
also applies, in much the same way.


Judge G.'s Arguments:

1.  Did the text have the proper form to be CFJs?

The statements (http://www.escribe.com/games/agora-discussion/m19148.html)
were clearly labelled, as per 991, such that no reasonable person would
believe that the CotC took "informal discussion" as CFJ statements out of

2.  Was the CotC aware and informed of the alleged CFJs?

In assigning the alleged CFJs to judges via Public Forum, the CotC
provided sufficient evidence that e considered emself aware and informed
that CFJ statements were submitted.

3.  Does this mean Agora-Discussion is always a legitimate means for
informing Officers or Players of actions, e.g. for unrestricted voting?

No.  Players have the privilege of "not paying attention" to matters
which are not sent to a public forum or to their registered email address.
The CotC could have validly requested a Public repost of the alleged CFJs or
ignored the matter (in which case, e should not have be found guilty of
failure to act).  The fact that e did act, at eir discretion, is evidence
that e considered emself informed by Agora-Disussion in this particular
case only.

4.  As the Caller of this CFJ argues, does the term "submit to" have a
meaning in the Rules above and beyond "make the appropriate agency
aware and informed of"?

Specifically, does "submit" require "make public" in the R478 sense?

There are many places in the Rules that specify that entities may
"submit" information.  In some cases the additional burden of
publishing/making public is explicitly stated (e.g. to submit a
Proposal one must publish it [R1493p1]).

But in at least one case, an exact mechaninsm for "submitting" is stated
that is explicitly *not* public: R1626p3 begins  "An Application is
submitted by sending it to a Player..."   It is clear to this Court
that an email directed at a registered address is sufficient to
constitute "sending" and thus would constitute "submitting."

So while posting something to a public forum constitutes "submitting
to" each and every Player (which is required for some types of submissions
such as Proposals), the term "submit to", in and of itself, has no
specific Ruleset meaning than "to make aware and informed of."  And
as covered in points 2-3 above, the alleged CFJ submissions  to
Agora-Discussion did so inform the CotC in this particular case.

This Court returned a Judgement of FALSE.