==============================  CFJ 1809  ==============================

    sentencing someone to APOLOGY without giving a set of prescribed
    words means that the apology has a null set of prescribed words.


Caller:                                 pikhq
Barred:                                 Zefram

Judge:                                  root
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by pikhq:                        28 Nov 2007 00:29:48 GMT
Assigned to root:                       28 Nov 2007 16:57:18 GMT
Judged TRUE by root:                    29 Nov 2007 02:15:38 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

"I sentence comex to APOLOGY."


Judge root's Arguments:

>From Rule 1504/16,

      The valid sentences are:


      * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),
        appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.  When in
        effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal
        apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed
        words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire
        for self-improvement.  The ninny is only obliged to publish
        one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of
        this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more
        than once.

APOLOGY with no set of words is thus not a valid sentencing judgement.
 But the rule does not stipulate how the set must be specified.  I
will interpret "giving" in the statement as meaning "explicitly
giving"; if interpreted as "giving by any means", then the statement
is a patent contradiction.

Rule 2158/1, reads in part:

      When a judicial case has an applicable open judicial question,
      it requires a judge, and its judge CAN assign a valid judgement
      to that question by announcement.

This rule also says nothing about how explicit the specification of
the judgement must be.  Nor does Rule 754/7, on regularity of
communication, or Rule 478/22, on announcements.

It seems to me that it is unambiguous, convenient, and not contrary to
the rules to interpret the lack of an explicitly specified set of
words as an implicit specification of the empty set.  The empty set is
a null set, so I assign a judgement of TRUE in CFJs 1808 and 1809.