==============================  CFJ 1814  ==============================

    The AFO won the game as a result of pikhq's message with Message-ID


Caller:                                 root

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by root:                         29 Nov 2007 22:01:26 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         29 Nov 2007 22:10:14 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     06 Dec 2007 18:18:43 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

comex announced 104 (allegedly -- I haven't counted them myself)
identical actions, each attempting to spend 0 VCs in order to decrease
the AFO's VVLOP by -1.

comex did not specify any colors for the 0 VCs e attempted to spend,
but I argue that this does not matter, since the number of distinct
colors in a set of 0 VCs must be 0.

I argue that "spend 0 VCs" is a non sequitur; no VCs are spent, and so
no action is performed.  I recall there being a precedent on this
topic, but I've been unable to dig it up.

I argue that "decrease by -1" is also a non sequitur; there is no way
to modify an integer value such that it is decreased and such that the
amount it is reduced by is -1.

pikhq's announcement was similar, but each action read "decreate"
rather than "decrease".  I argue that this difference is meaningless
per Rule 754(i).


Gratuitous Arguments by root:

Oh, and I have one other gratuitous argument that I neglected to
include when I initiated the case.  Rule 2134/1, which empowers the
win, does not refer to VVLOP but rather to "voting limit on ordinary
proposals".  Since there are three different kinds of "voting limit on
ordinary proposals" (VVLOP, EVLOP, BVLOP), it is not clear which of
those (or, perhaps, the sum of all three) is to be used in determining
the win.


Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

More precisely, each action in pikhq's announcement read "decreate
by 1" rather than "decrease by -1".  I argue that this difference
is significant enough to make 1814 FALSE, even if 1813 is TRUE.


Judge G.'s Arguments:

"Decreate" is (most likely accidentally) a word and concept useable for assets
(i.e. "destroy").  This creates enough reasonable ambiguity to invalidate this
attempt.  I should also point out that intent plays a role here:  If a player
attempts to perform an action through a loophole that is against the spirit
but not the letter of the law (e.g. a "scam"), we should require that the scam
pass all possible scrutiny and obey the precise letter of the law, as well.
(If this was an error performed during the course of a common action which
abides in both the letter and spirit, we might allow more leniency).  FALSE.