==============================  CFJ 2146  ==============================

    This CFJ has ID number 2146.

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

Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  omd
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by ais523:                       04 Sep 2008 17:47:31 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        04 Sep 2008 17:47:31 GMT
Judged TRUE by omd:                     14 Sep 2008 01:43:36 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

See rule 2193, which reads in part:
{{{
      Any Monster (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a
      particular office (deputise for that office) if:

      (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of
          holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the
          office is vacant, would so require if the office were
          filled
}}}
I think Murphy was the only person who voted against the recent proposal
to add that to the rule. As a rather obvious scam, I added it without
the restrictions that would require the action to be one that the CotC
CAN do, and also removed the time limit; therefore, the deputisation
works even though I'm not the CotC and even though an ID number of 1
would be INVALID if actually assigned by the person forced to assign an
ID number to it. (I can act on behalf of the Monster due to rule 2192;
possibly this is the first time anyone has done so.) In other words,
nowadays SHALL implies CAN; if anyone SHALL do something, then I CAN do
that thing. (I don't quite think this leads to a dictatorship, but I can
certainly cause healthy amounts of chaos if needed; if this scam works,
and I don't see why it wouldn't, I suggest that the rest of Agora bribe
me with something nice and permanent to persuade me to give the power
up.)

I'd like to point out to the players of Agora that it's normally worth
reading proposals before voting FOR them; Murphy was the only player to
vote AGAINST the proposal that added this rather obvious scam (and even
pointed it out in eir comments). (For the record, I did an obvious scam
because I couldn't think of a better way to Monsterise the rule, and was
shocked when the resulting proposal passed.)

Protection Racket, eat your heart out!

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

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 10:55 -0700, Charles Reiss wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:47, ais523 <ais523@bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> > I call for judgement on the following statement: "This CFJ has ID number
> > 2146."
> > I act on behalf of the Monster to deputise for the CotC to assign that
> > CFJ an ID number of 2146.
> > I call for judgement on the following statement: "This CFH has ID number
> > 1."
> > I act on behalf of the Monster to deputise for the CotC to assign that
> > CFJ an ID number of 1.
>
> INVALID because 1 is not greater than any orderly CFJ ID number.
>
> -woggle
Gratuitous arguments for CFJ 2146 and CFJ 1:

I'm not sure about that, which is why I filed CFJ 1. Rule 2161(a)
implies that the CotC SHALL assign ID numbers to CFJs, so the Monster
CAN assign ID numbers. Rule 2161(b) limits "such an assignment", but it
isn't under rule 2161 that I assigned the ID number, so it's not obvious
whether rule 2161(b) applies in this situation. (Note that The Monster
rule doesn't require the action in question to be POSSIBLE, just that
someone SHALL perform it.)

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

Judge omd's Arguments:

[sent to a-b with subject "Judgement of CFJs 2146-7", following a
 draft sent to a-d with subject "Proto-Judgement of CFJs 2146-7",
 thus "proto-judge" is interpreted as R754(1)-synonymous with "judge"]

Certainly, the CotC was required to assign ID numbers to CFJs 2146 and
1/2147.  So, any Monster CAN assign an ID number 'as if' e held the
office of CotC.  Game custom is that where an officer fails to perform
a duty which might be performed multiple ways (assign one of multiple
valid ID numbers), a deputy can make the choice-- without, in fact,
even announcing beforehand which choice e intends to make.  This is
required in order to allow deputies to fulfil offices' obligations in
any kind of orderly way.  So I proto-judge CFJ 2146 TRUE.

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