==============================  CFJ 1731  ==============================

    it is possible for a person to bear more than one instance of a
    patent title simultaneously.

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

Caller:                                 Zefram

Judge:                                  Murphy
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by Zefram:                       23 Aug 2007 14:57:43 GMT
Assigned to Murphy:                     23 Aug 2007 15:01:02 GMT
Judged TRUE by Murphy:                  29 Aug 2007 05:11:05 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

The oldest Agoran practice relating to this question suggests that it is
possible.  For example (from Oerjan's 1994 mail archive), the registrar's
report of 16 February 1994 records this list of former players:

|Left the Game:          Alexx
|                        Andy Latto
|                        Jim
|                        Karl Anderson
|                        Kirt
|                        Champion Champion Wes
|                        Champion Lurker Ronald Kunne

This clearly distinguishes between Wes, who had won the game twice,
and Ronald Kunne, who had won only once, by the number of instances of
the patent title "Champion" which they each bear.  When Wes rejoined
the game in June 1994, e habitually signed off eir messages as

|Champion Champion Wes
|magika@netcom.com

Current practice doesn't seem to have changed.  The same distinction is
still maintained today in the herald's report, the most recent publication
of which includes this in the list of holders of the title "Champion":

|                    Troublemaker at Large, Vanyel (twice), Wes (twice)

and also has more explicit duplications such as that for Goethe:

|                    favor, Garth, Goddess Eris, Goethe (twice),
|                    Goethe (by Paradox), Ian, Jeffrey, Kelly, KoJen,

Apparently Goethe holds three instances of the patent title of "Champion",
once due to paradox and twice more for unspecified reasons.  This usage
for the title of "Champion" is also supported by rule 1922:

|      (d)  Champion, to be awarded to any player who wins the game.
|           The Herald's monthly report shall record how the player
|           won.

which implies that the herald is under a distinct reporting requirement
for each award of the title.  If the title could only be borne once,
presumably it could not be awarded to anyone who already had the title,
and it is doubtful whether the requirement to record the manner of a
win would then be applicable.

However, arguing against multiple bearings of one title is CFJ 1598.
In this case judge GreyKnight ruled that "a Player may either hold or not
hold a particular Patent Title, and that it is beyond the scope of the
current Rules for a Player to hold multiple "instances" of a single Patent
Title".  This judgement was made without any reference to the historical
practice regarding patent titles.  The CFJ was called principally to
rule on the validity of multiple paradox wins, not principally to rule
on patent titles, so no arguments were presented concerning that aspect
of the case; indeed, caller Sherlock seems to have taken the possibility
of multiple bearings to be so obvious that it required no comment.

So I suggest that the judgement of CFJ 1598 may be in error.  This CFJ,
by dealing with this single legal question separately from all other
issues, can resolve the question with finality.

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

Judge Murphy's Arguments:

The rules do not explicitly allow or disallow multiple bearings in
general, but they do disallow it in some specific cases (degrees
and Long Service), implying that they allow it in general.  This
concurs with the historical practices pointed out by the caller.

Judge GreyKnight's arguments in CFJ 1598 appear to use "beyond
the scope of the current Rules" to mean "not allowed by the
current Rules", which I believe is incorrect.  However, CFJ 1598
also depends on whether an obligation to award a Patent Title
may be effectively fulfilled multiple times, which should be
considered separately.

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