==============================  CFJ 1807  ==============================

    root won the game at or around Sat, 24 Nov 2007 23:29:13 UTC.

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

Caller:                                 root

Judge:                                  BobTHJ
Judgement:                              TRUE

Appeal:                                 1807a
Decision:                               REMAND


Judge:                                  BobTHJ
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by root:                         25 Nov 2007 06:34:11 GMT
Assigned to BobTHJ:                     28 Nov 2007 14:07:27 GMT
Judged TRUE by BobTHJ:                  28 Nov 2007 15:55:31 GMT
Appealed by Zefram:                     28 Nov 2007 16:08:50 GMT
Appealed by Taral:                      28 Nov 2007 17:08:10 GMT
Appealed by Murphy:                     30 Nov 2007 04:10:00 GMT
Appeal 1807a:                           30 Nov 2007 17:00:24 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal:                     03 Dec 2007 16:02:25 GMT
Assigned to BobTHJ:                     03 Dec 2007 19:13:10 GMT
Judged TRUE by BobTHJ:                  07 Dec 2007 16:53:14 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

In a message dated Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:29:13 -0800, Judge Murphy
entered a judgement of UNDECIDABLE in CFJ 1787, which has not since
been appealed.  The statement in CFJ 1787 is "It is permissible to
judge the question on veracity in this case FALSE."  This statement
concerns the permissibility of a rule-defined action, but not one that
is either prior or hypothetical.

At the time of the judgement, Rule 2110/2 read:

      If an inquiry case on the possibility of a rule-defined action
      or the permissibility of an action results in a judgement of
      UNDECIDABLE, and that judgement is not appealed within a week,
      then the initiator of the inquiry case wins the game if e is a
      player.  This can only occur once per inquiry case.

During the following week, Proposal 5297 amended Rule 2110 to read:

      If an inquiry case on the possibility of a prior or hypothetical
      rule-defined action, or the permissibility of a prior or
      hypothetical action, results in a judgement of UNDECIDABLE, and
      the judgement is not appealed within a week (or is upheld via an
      appeal decision of AFFIRM), then the initiator of the inquiry
      case wins the game by paradox if e is a player.  This can only
      occur once per inquiry case.

Rule 2110/2 may be interpreted as setting in motion a seven-day clock
at the time the UNDECIDABLE judgement is entered; when the clock
expires, it exerts its effects regardless of whether Rule 2110/2 still
exists.  This interpretation allows this CFJ to be TRUE, but it is
unsatisfactory, as it permits rules to act outside their lifetimes.

>From an alternative standpoint, after Rule 2110/2 was replaced with
Rule 2110/3, the former version could no longer affect the game in any
way; thus it could not cause a win, and this CFJ would be FALSE.  This
interpretation is troubling when applied to other rules; for example,
a ratification that is underway when Rule 1551 is suddenly amended
might cease to be effectual.

Instead, I propose a compromise interpretation: a process defined by
the rules, such as the process of ratification or the "seven-day
clock" of Rule 2110, is a rule-defined entity.  This interpretation
allows the following paragraph of Rule 1586/3 to be invoked:

      If the Rules defining an entity are amended such that they still
      define that entity but with different properties, then that
      entity and its properties continue to exist to whatever extent
      is possible under the new definitions.

Using this definition, the "clock" initiated by Rule 2110/2 continued
to count down under Rule 2110/3 until it ultimately expired and
awarded root a win, making this case TRUE.  I believe that this
interpretation best exemplifies game custom and the best interests of
the game.

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

Judge BobTHJ's Arguments:

I accept the caller's arguments and hereby judge TRUE.

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

Appellant Zefram's Arguments:

Rule 2110 (either version) is not expressed as setting up a delayed
action.  root/BobTHJ's interpretation of rule 1586 might well apply in
some places that are so expressed, but it cannot apply here.  Rule 2110
is expressed as an instantaneous condition, which becomes true at the end
of an appeal-free week following a relevant judgement.  The condition
in R2110/2 never became true while R2110/2 was in force, because the
week had not expired.  The condition in R2110/3 never became true,
because the judgement at issue did not meet its eligibility criterion.

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

Judge BobTHJ's Arguments:

Accepting the appellant's arguments, I still find this question to be
TRUE. The CFJ called by root can be determined to be about a
hypothetical action: the judgment of that CFJ. Therefore, it does meet
the requirements for R2110/3, and root is awarded a win.

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