==============================  CFJ 2147  ==============================

    This CFH has ID number 1.

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

Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  omd
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by ais523:                       04 Sep 2008 17:47:31 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        04 Sep 2008 17:47:31 GMT
Judged FALSE 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"]

If you CAN perform an action "as if" you hold an office, does that
mean you CAN perform the action, during which you act as if you hold
the office?  Or does it just mean that you CAN act as if you hold the
office for the purpose of performing the action?  Rule 2160, the
normal deputisation rule, requires that it be POSSIBLE for the deputy
to perform the action, other than by deputisation, if e held the
office, but it might be (as root contends) that the requirement is
redundant.

      Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a
      particular office (deputise for that office) if:

"as if" means (answers.com) "in the same way that it would be if", or
(mw) "as it would be if" or "as one would do if".  If the Monster (or
player, in this case) *did* hold the office in question, e would be
unable to assign the ID number 1 due to Rule 2161 (b).  The "as if"
limits, not extends, the meaning of the first part.  Indeed, I think
we would all agree about that if not for Rule 2160 (d), "it would be
POSSIBLE...", which confuses the issue.  But we need not drastically
change the interpretation of a rule, just because not doing so would
yield a redundant clasue.

With this interpretation, Rules 2160 and 2193 are merely acting as
"proxies" for the mechanisms (by announcement, etc.) provided by other
rules, and a (fake-)deputised assignment is indeed "such an
assignment" from the viewpoint of Rule 2161, and therefore INVALID.  I
proto-judge CFJ 2147 FALSE.

Point of interest: the Monster couldn't have violated the SHALL, even
if e had succeeded in assigning the number 1, because I think e (well,
ais523) did reasonably believe that selecting any smaller number (than
1!) might be invalid or confusing.

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