==============================  CFJ 1905  ==============================

    There is a Rule 9999.

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

Caller:                                 omd

Judge:                                  Murphy
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by omd:                          07 Feb 2008 23:06:47 GMT
Assigned to Murphy:                     07 Feb 2008 23:26:23 GMT
Judged FALSE by Murphy:                 16 Feb 2008 06:25:11 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

The criminal case deals only with whether I believed a Rule 9999 to
exist, not whether it actually /did/.  Therefore, I think an
additional CFJ is necessary.

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

Judge Murphy's Arguments:

The alleged creation of Rule 9999 hinges on the following points:

  1) comex's first message (see evidence) was public, and thus
     contained a public document and an announcement of intent
     to ratify it without objection.

  2) comex's second message (see evidence) was public, and thus
     resolved the decision of whether to approve the ratification.

comex cites CFJ 1314, which appears to set the precedent that a
message sent to a Public Forum is public, even if it is sent from
an unsubscribed address and thus fails to be relayed.  However,
Rule 478 did and still does require public messages to be sent
/via/ a Public Forum, or to all players with a clear designation
of intent to be public.  (In other words, the precedent implied by
CFJ 1314 was incorrect, but was not recognized as such until now.)

Based on common sense and the best interests of the game, I
interpret "sent via a Public Forum" as requiring the Public Forum
in question to re-send the message to a reasonably large subset of
the set of all persons who have reasonably arranged to receive
messages via that Public Forum.  Thus, a message that is initially
blocked, but subsequently approved by the Distributor and re-sent,
would qualify as public.  (The "reasonably large subset" clause is
to avoid disqualifying messages due to a hiccup involving just one
or a few subscribers.)

There is no evidence that the Public Forum in question re-sent
either of these messages to anyone, other than possibly comex emself
and/or the Distributor.  Accordingly, I judge FALSE.

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

Judge Murphy's Evidence:

comex's first message, sent to a-b from an unsubscribed address on or
about February 1, 2008 (excerpts)

> THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
[snip]
> Rule 9999/0 (Power=4)
> Imperator
>
>      comex CAN and may at any time by announcement make any explicit
>      change whatsoever to the gamestate, including but not limited to
>      enacting, repealing, or amending a rule.
>
>      This rule takes precedence over all other rules.
>
> History:
> Created by Proposal 9999 (comex), 1 January 1970
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> END OF THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
>
> I intend, without objection, to ratify the above-published official
> document (between THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET and END OF THE FULL LOGICAL
> RULESET)  whose scope is the Full Logical Ruleset, part of the
> Rulekeepor's Monthly report.
>
> ~comex

comex's second message, sent to a-b from an unsubscribed address on or
about February 7, 2008 (excerpt), full text at http://pastebin.ca/895515
including a quotation of eir first message

> This message resolves the Agoran decision of whether to ratify the
> Full Logical Ruleset I published in my message datestamped Fri, 1 Feb
> 2008 18:37:34 -0800 and quoted below (a decision that I initiated in
> that same message).
>
> I'm sorry if you didn't get that message.  I sent it from my
> unsubscribed Yahoo mail account to agora-business, so the list gobbled
> it.  But, by CFJ 1314 the message was valid anyway.
>
> Valid votes:
> comex: SUPPORT (implicit)
>
> The option selected by Agora is APPROVED.  I hereby ratify the
> official document published in the above-referenced and below-quoted
> message (between THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET and END OF THE FULL LOGICAL
> RULESET) whose scope is the Full Logical Ruleset, part of the
> Rulekeepor's Monthly report.
>
> Ummm, I might have made a mistake in my FLR.  You should check it out.
> Specifically it looks like I accidentally added a Rule 9999,
> "Imperator".

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