==============================  CFJ 1555  ==============================

    Quazie's private Orders to Goethe on or about Sat, 9 Apr 2005
    04:28:32 were improperly executed.

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

Barred:                                 Quazie
Caller:                                 G.

Judge:                                  Manu
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by G.:                           18 Apr 2005 06:23:27 GMT
Assigned to Manu:                       18 Apr 2005 08:37:49 GMT
Judged TRUE by Manu:                    19 Apr 2005 18:14:24 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

For the first CFJ, in CFJ 1295, Judge solublefish specified
that e wished to enter into precedent that an order was
improper if it ordered a player to do something over which
that player has discretion.  I would like to strengthen
this argument by suggesting that an order to do something
unregulated (like dancing) would conflict with Rule 101.

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

Caller's Evidence:

First Orders:
http://www.agoranomic.org/pipermail/agora-business/2005-April/004153.html

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

Judge Manu's Arguments:

=== THE DANCING CASE ===

Rule 1796 states that "the execution of the Order must have been
required by or permitted in the circumstances which existed at the
time it was executed". PERMITTED.
Rule 101 states that "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by the
Rules is permitted and unregulated[...]". Orders are regulated by the
Rules and thus, do not fall under R101's unregulated clause. Since
dancing in itself is unregulated and permitted, so is not dancing. Or
singing. And since R101 takes precedence over Orders, Goethe's right
of not dancing is perfectly legal.

Referring to CFJ 1295, Judge solublefish stated that:
"The orders are improperly executed, as they attempt to direct a
player in a matter over which the Rules grant em discretion.  I will
note that the only bit of this case which seems to be setting new
precedent is Goethe and Steve's contention that this constitutes
impropriety. In addition to the fact that I feel bound by the
appellate court's argument, I concur with this argument. I would like,
if it is within
the power ofthis court, to explicitly make this assertion part of
judicial precendent for the consideration of future judges."

Well, I am a future Judge. Goethe indeed has discretion over the Order
of dancing and there is no way to actually get a proof, within Agora's
frame at least, that e did it. Therefor, I judge that the Dancing
Order by Quazie ("I further Order Goethe to dance upon reading this
order, and make a public announcement that e is doing so, as I am nice
enough to allow em to definitely legally vote on the Ordinary
Proposals distributed this week, as opposed to leaving em with a CFJ
and no legal votes.") is invalid and thus is Vacated.

=== THE NINNY CASE ===

Quazie's original Order:
"I Order Goethe to make a public announcement that e is a Ninny for
causing all of these recent stock related incidences."

The same argument applies here. Making public announcements is not
regulated or defined by the Rules. Therefor, it is Goethe's right not
to make a public announcement and this right is stronger than Quazie's
Order.

Because of this and that, I give a judgement of TRUE for CFJ 1555.

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