=========================  Criminal Case 2451  =========================

    comex broke the power=3 rule 2125 six times by making the
    announcement "I hereby announce that I performed duties related to
    Enigma in a timely manner during this month." six times.

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

Caller:                                 Tiger
Barred:                                 omd

Judge:                                  Taral
Judgement:                              GUILTY/SILENCE

Appeal:                                 2451a
Decision:                               AFFIRM

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

History:

Called by Tiger:                        17 Apr 2009 13:44:52 GMT
Defendant omd informed:                 17 Apr 2009 13:44:52 GMT
Assigned to Taral:                      19 Apr 2009 00:32:23 GMT
Judged GUILTY/SILENCE by Taral:         24 Apr 2009 21:01:02 GMT
Appealed by omd:                        26 Apr 2009 19:46:26 GMT
Appeal 2451a:                           26 Apr 2009 19:46:26 GMT
AFFIRMED on Appeal:                     03 May 2009 21:29:32 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

2009/4/17 comex <comexk@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> <jonatan.kilhamn@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If you have been the contestmaster for at least 16 days, you MAY once,
>> otherwise you MAY not, so all the statements are illegal. I'm not
>> really sure about what the rest of 2234 does to this, if the
>> statements are illegal but still counts as "such a statement" and thus
>> awards you points, but at least you have broken a power=3 rule as
>> well.
>
> Ah, I forgot about that rule.  That would definitely make repeated
> such announcements by the contestmaster illegal, but I believe 'the
> contestmaster MAY announce so-and-so' is the action and 'ASAP after
> the end of the month, once' is the condition.  I contest the NoV as I
> did not perform that action.

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

Judge Taral's Arguments:

Setting aside questions of the form of this NoV, I will first attempt
to address the intent of it.

Rule 2125/4 (relevant excerpt):

      d) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while
         certain conditions are satisfied.  Such an action MAY NOT be
         performed except as allowed by the rules.

Rule 2234/2 (relevant excerpt):

      As soon as possible after the end of a month, for each contest,
      the player (if any) who was its contestmaster for at least 16
      days during that month MAY once announce that e performed duties
      related to that contest in a timely manner during that month,
      subject to other rules regarding truthfulness.

Rule 1023/24 (relevant excerpt):

      (a) The phrases "in a timely fashion" and "as soon as possible"
          mean "within seven days".

Rule 2125 wants us to split the Rule's mandate into an action A and a
condition C such that the Rule can be read "if C, one MAY A". It then
imposes "one MAY NOT A unless permitted by the rules". It is logically
clear that where one draws the line between C and A can drastically
affect the resulting injunction.

One split would make A be "announce" and everything else be in C. This
results in the injunction "one MAY NOT announce unless permitted by
the rules." Absurd.

Equally absurd it the other extreme: A is the entire mandate, and C is
empty. The resulting injunction is useless, since it says "one MAY NOT
(entire mandate) unless permitted by the rules", where (entire
mandate) is obviously permitted by the rules.

We are forced to rely on some common sense. One reasonably criterion
for the separation of action and condition is whether the clause
affects the content or the context of the action. The actual text or
sentiment expressed in the announcement is content and is generally
included as part of the action. Contextual requirements, like the
person performing the announcement, are generally conditions.

On top of all this, some parts of the mandate may include implicit or
explicit quantifiers, which are neither conditions nor part of the
action. These quantifiers affect placeholders in later clauses,
resulting in a (usually infinite) set of mandates rather than a single
one.

The present question involves a mandate with the following clauses:
(Placeholders are in parentheses)

* As soon as possible after the end of (a month) - condition with
implicit quantifier and associated placeholder
* for each contest - quantifier
* the player - actor quantifier
* who was (its) contestmaster for at least 16 days during (that month)
- condition with placeholders for quantified values
* announce - action
* (e) performed duties related to (that contest) in a timely manner
during (that month) - action with placeholders for quantified values

I have carefully split out the actor from the conditions so as to
avoid introducing an ambiguity in the referent of "e" in the resulting
injunction.

Given the above categorization, we can assemble these pieces into an
injunction:

For each month, for each contest, a player MAY NOT announce that e
performed duties related to that contest in a timely manner during
that month, unless permitted by the rules.

Comex did, 6 times, perform the enjoined action. The question remains
whether it was permitted by the rules.

Unfortunately for comex, e used the language "this month", i.e. the
month of April. Since the end of April has not yet come, none of these
statements could possibly have been made within 7 days of the end of
April.

Finally, there comes the question of the form of the NoV. The rules
only anticipate an NoV being used for a single violation of a single
rule by a single act. I am forced, therefore, to disregard the "six
times" aspect of this NoV. Any future judges on this issue are advised
to determine whether or not these 6 announcements constitute a single
action or multiple actions before passing judgement.

The Court find comex GUILTY and sentences em to SILENCE.

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

Appellant omd's Arguments:

I already gained a Rest for the same action, the false
contestmaster award claims, due to the NoV accusing me of violating
truthfulness; this punishment may therefore be invalid due to R101.
Note, however, that I did close the NoV myself, and see CFJ 1981 (but
I think the situation is quite different here).

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