==============================  CFJ 1558  ==============================

    When gazebo_dude deregistered, Thieves in the Night was returned to
    the deck

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

Caller:                                 Quazie

Judge:                                  Maud
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by Quazie:                       18 Apr 2005 17:20:16 GMT
Assigned to Maud:                       19 Apr 2005 06:43:57 GMT
Judged TRUE by Maud:                    24 Apr 2005 00:44:44 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

R2069 states that if a card is not in possession of a gambler, it is
returned to the deck.  gazebo_dude deregistered making em no longer a
gambler, but I believe that the card never could be returned to the
deck.  Return implies that the card ends up where it started, when in
reality, as thieves in the night is a grafty card, the card started
existing in gazebo_dudes hand.  Thus, the card can not be returned to
a place it never was in the first place.

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

Caller's Evidence:

Michael Brown  agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:13:12 -0500

I, gazebo_dude, deregister from Agora per rule 1043:


>>Rule 1043/5 (Power=1)
>>Deregistration
>>
>>     A Player other than the Speaker may deregister from Agora by
>>     sending a public message announcing eir deregistration. A Player
>>     who deregisters in this fashion ceases to be a Player effective
>>     at the time date-stamped on that message, and any attempts by em
>>     to reregister before thirty days have passed are without effect.
>>     This Rule takes precedence over Rules which would cause em to be
>>     reregistered before thirty days have passed after eir
>>     deregistration.


It was nice knowing everybody; good luck to you all.

gazebo_dude

Rule 2069/2 (Power=1)
Card Definitions

      I. Possession

      Cards may be possessed by Gamblers. All Players are Gamblers.
      If at any time a Card is not possessed by a Gambler, it
      immediately and automatically returns to the possession of The
      Deck.

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

Judge Maud's Arguments:

On the face of it it would seem that this CFJ should be trivially TRUE,
since nonplayer persons are not gamblers and rule 2069 says that when a
card is not held by a gambler, it is returned to the deck.  However, the
Caller argues that returning to the deck is not possible in this case,
since the card was never in the deck's possession to begin with.

I see two relevant issues.  First, there is the practical question: is
Thieves in the Night in the deck, and if not, where is it?  Second,
there is what I believe to be a more theoretical question: was Thieves
in the Night returned to the deck?  Of course, the Statement only asks
the second question, but I believe both should be considered for an
accurate judgement.

To answer the first question, I claim that the provision

      If at any time a Card is not possessed by a Gambler, it
      immediately and automatically returns to the possession of The
      Deck.

of rule 2069 should be interpreted as a requirement for the Deckmastor
to note a transfer of that card to the deck.  The use of the word
"returns" indicates a presupposition, in the Gricean sense, that the
card was originally held by the deck.  That is, that proposition is not
an implication but rather a background assumption of the provision in
question.  To give a non-Agoran example, the order "Stop robbing banks!"
directed to someone who has never robbed a bank can be followed by doing
nothing.  It is not necessary for the person so ordered to rob a single
bank to make quitting make more sense.  The order in such a case is
indeed odd, but this is because the presupposition fails to hold, not
because it is logically impossible to carry out the order.  In a similar
manner, the rules presuppose that Thieves in the Night was originally
held by the deck, but the actual content of the requirement is that the
card be transferred to the deck.  Hence the answer to the first question
is: yes, Thieves in the Night is in the deck.

As for the second question, fungibility requires that cards with the
same name be interchangeable, being legally distinguishable only by
their current owner.  As it happens, a Thieves in the Night card was
created in the possession of the deck, and another was created outside
its possession.  But we cannot legally recognize any such distinction.
Hence it must be the case that either any Thieves in the Night card
can be returned to the deck, or none can.  I see no contradiction in the
claim that a memoryless card can be returned to the deck, and I find
nothing in the rules which prohibits it.

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