==============================  CFJ 2014  ==============================

    If ehrid was able to act on my behalf at the time CFJ 1999 and CFJ
    2000 were called one or more of the set of {CFJ 1999, CFJ 2000}
    would've been TRUE.

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

Caller:                                 Quazie

Judge:                                  cmealerjr
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by Quazie:                       17 Jun 2008 08:00:55 GMT
Assigned to cmealerjr:                  18 Jun 2008 06:36:11 GMT
Judged FALSE by cmealerjr:              18 Jun 2008 14:31:10 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

The more interesting question behind these CFJs is what ehrid's
statement really could have done.

Whenever someone is part of  a partnership or something of that
nature, it's customary for the player acting on behalf of the entity
to say that the partnership performs the action, e.g. 'The perlnomic
partnership votes as follows', or 'Human point two registers'.  In
this case, ehrid stated that e performed the action of 'I deregister'
on my behalf.  My interpretation is that e attempted to act on my
behalf to deregister em, which would make this CFJ FALSE, though I'm
not sure of the interpretation of the statement.

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

Judge cmealerjr's Arguments:

For the purposes of this message, "I" is a set of players on whose behalf the
player cdm014 can act which excludes all players not cdm014. I intentionally
wrote the judgment to have as small a foot print as possible while still
resolving the issue I felt affected this particular CFJ.

CFJ 1999 and CFJ 2000 both hinge on the meaning of the word "I."

By stating e was acting on behalf of Quazie before stating the action, e,
intentionally or unintentionally, introduced
an ambiguity into the meaning of "I." E did not make any statement to clarify
the ambiguity, as could e have acted on
Quazie, any act e took could have emself as an actor or Quazie.

I interpret CFJ 712 to require an unambiguous statement of the actor where a
player can announce an action as one or
more players.

It seems that ambiguity might not have happened had the action been phrased,
"Acting on behalf of Quazie, Quazie deregisters"
or even "Acting on behalf of Quazie, I announce that e deregisters." Both
statements make clear who engages in the act of
of deregistering.

Therefore, I judge FALSE on CFJ 2014. When a player makes a truthful reference
to their ability to act on behalf of
another entity, in the same message e announces an action in the form of "I
act" without clearly defining "I" by
unambiguously excluding all other entities on whose behalf e could act, an
ambiguity is introduced into the meaning of
"I" which causes a statement not to meet the criteria set by CFJ 712, and no
action to occur, since there is not a proper
actor. In this particular case ehird might as well have said "Acting on behalf
of Quazie, deregister," which obviously does
not meet requirements for clarity.

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

Judge cmealerjr's Evidence:

According to CFJ 712 Referenced in the FLR under Rule 754:  Referring to a
Player by a method other than eir name or
nickname is acceptable, as long as it is unambiguous.

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