==============================  CFJ 2358  ==============================

    If I submitted "The following is my Cantus Cygneus: {pigs are
    delicious!!}" to the Registrar, it would be a Cantus Cygneus

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

Caller:                                 ehird

Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by ehird:                        26 Jan 2009 11:37:15 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     27 Jan 2009 21:54:06 GMT
Judged FALSE by ais523:                 02 Feb 2009 12:11:39 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

I argue for TRUE, same precedent would apply to apologies

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

Gratuitous Arguments by ehird:

On 26 Jan 2009, at 17:22, Kerim Aydin wrote:

> Except that Rule 1504 contains a standard for what an apology must
> contain (remorse etc., and the word "apology" has a standard english
> meaning, neither of which are true for the term "Cantus Cygnus", so
> your
> text was not an Apology by either the Rules or by common definition.
> I'm certainly intending to bring a Failure to Apologize case against
> you if you don't do better.

[[ Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and expressing eir
       reproach for those who e feels have treated em so badly. ]]

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

Judge ais523's Arguments:

[All rule quotes below are from rule 1789/5.]

First, I must point out that the caller's argument that the same
precedent would apply to Canti Cygnei (sorry about the dubious plural,
but the grammar of the original phrase is dubious in the first place)
and apologies in this matter is spurious. If the question were asked
about apologies, it would be a straightforward FALSE; the definition of
apologies requires various things to be included in the apology, such as
all the prescribed words. On the other hand, "Cantus Cygneus" is not
defined at all, which means that the situation is quite different:
{{{
      Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously
      by the Agoran community that e can no longer abide to be a part
      of it, e may submit a document to the Registrar, clearly labeled
      a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and expressing eir
      reproach for those who e feels have treated em so badly.

      As soon as possible after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the
      Registrar shall publish this document along with a Writ of
      Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player
      to be deregistered.
}}}
These are the only two mentions of the phrase "Cantus Cygneus" (apart
from in a rule title). Looking at the history of the rule is not
particularly helpful either, because the proposal was originally
submitted in order to fulfil a requirement to include a "truly hideous
pun" in a proposal; therefore, the entire intent of the original
proposal was merely to include the joke at the end.

So what is a Cantus Cygneus? Is it a "document [...] clearly labeled a
Cantus Cygneus", or a "document [...] clearly labeled a Cantus Cygneus,
detailing eir grievances and expressing eir reproach for those who e
feels have treated em so badly."? Does it have to be submitted to the
Registrar in order to be a Cantus Cygneus?

There is a more important point here, though, which makes one
interpretation clearly in the best interests of the game. Although the
precedent of this CFJ will not affect apologies, there is at least one
other term which is used in a rule but not properly defined, and it's in
the same rule:
{{{
      As soon as possible after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the
      Registrar shall publish this document along with a Writ of
      Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player
      to be deregistered. The Registrar shall note the method of
      deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar Reports,
      as long as the Player remains deregistered.

      The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and
      the notation in the Registrar's Report will ensure that,
      henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of
      FAGE.
}}}

The question here is, what specifically is a Writ of FAGE? Does it have
to be published by the Registrar? Does it have to be published alongside
a Cantus Cygneus?

The way the rule is written, it seems pretty clear that the intention is
that the entire process has to be followed in order in order for a Writ
of FAGE to actually be a Writ of FAGE. The rule does not make much sense
otherwise (it would basically allow the Registrar to arbitrarily
deregister people, which is definitely not in the best interests of the
game!). So the rule itself is not clearly enough defined to be
unambiguous, but its intent in this case is relatively clear, and the
best interests of the game come to the same answer.

I know everyone hates it when I invoke rule 217, but I'm going to do it
now anyway, because it seems to be the most relevant way to determine
what the ambiguous rule means. A Writ of FAGE is clearly intended only
to be a Writ of FAGE when submitted at the appropriate time in a Cantus
Cygneus process. By the same precedent, a Cantus Cygeneus is only a
Cantus Cygneus if the proper steps are taken (including all required
information, and submitting to the Registrar). The alleged Cantus
Cygneus in the CFJ statement is missing some of the required
information; therefore, I judge CFJ 2358 FALSE.


TLDR: Posting a Writ of FAGE without the appropriate information would
let the Registrar arbitrarily deregister people, if it worked, which is
against the best interests of the game and the spirit of the rule in
question. Posting a Cantus Cygneus should follow the same standards.
FALSE.

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