==============================  CFJ 2488  ==============================

    The prohibition on excessive Notices of Violation in rule 2230 is
    ineffective due to rule 101


Caller:                                 ais523
Barred:                                 Murphy

Judge:                                  root

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by ais523:                       04 May 2009 16:39:38 GMT
Assigned to root:                       04 May 2009 18:20:24 GMT
root recused:                           17 May 2009 21:30:09 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         17 May 2009 21:35:31 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     18 May 2009 05:47:25 GMT


Gratuitous Arguments by Wooble:

A player's right to participate in the fora is not abridged by any
rule forbidding specific conduct in the fora, as long as that rules
doesn't make it impossible or reasonably difficult to use the fora for
their intended purpose, to communicate with other players.  This right
does not extend to a right to perform literally any possible game
action by announcement.  Every CFJ with a judgement of GUILTY since
the relevant language entered R101 is precedent.


Judge G.'s Arguments:

The Right in question in R101/12 is:

         v. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.

What precisely does the right of "participation” mean?  "Participation"
is to "take part in", and this Court finds that a player who is
generally able to send information via the fora is taking part in the
fora (or at least able to do so in a way that eir right is not
violated), whether or not the information sent has legal effect, or
whether or not (in general) a punishment is proscribed for sending a
particular type of information.

The following types of things would violate R101v:
   1.  Any technical or physical means of one player preventing another
       player from being able to send a message via a forum without
       unreasonable delays;
   2.  A 'MAY NOT publish' prohibition with a domain and punishment that
       is so broad it essentially prevents a player from sending any or
       most information via fora (e.g. "any player who publishes
       anything commits the class-24 crime of rebellion and is
   3.  What about a rule that says a player "CANNOT publish" certain
       information?  One way to look at such a clause is to decide that,
       if technical means aren’t used to block said publication, the
       game is required to treat the message as if it did not exist and
       had never been sent.  Such an interpretation would violate R101v,
       as it would imply that a type of message wasn’t in fact sent or
       sendable.  However, a better way to look at such a rule is that
       is simply doesn’t function because reality overrides it.  When a
       message has been sent, it has been sent, and it is meaningless to
       say that it CANNOT have been sent because, well, there it is, in
       front of us.  As such, a Rule simply CANNOT enforce a "CANNOT
       publish".  There’s no violation of R101v, there’s just a conflict
       with reality and, in this case, reality wins.

The "prohibition" that is the subject of this CFJ arises from a clause
in 2230/10 that is an unholy mix of effects:

      A player MAY publish a Notice of Violation (with N support,
      where N is the number of valid un-Closed Notices of Violation e
      previously published during the same week, or by announcement if
      N is zero) alleging that a single entity (the Accused) has
      broken a Rule.

It is utterly unclear how 'MAY', 'publish', and 'with N support' and
'Notice' mix together:
   -  'with N support' explicitly invokes R1728/24 (a.2), which
      describes how the action CAN (not MAY or MAY NOT) be performed;
   -  It is clear that a player CAN publish the information that makes a
      Notice, however, if e doesn’t do the publication as the Rule says
      e "MAY with support", does the information "create" a notice and
      begin that process, or is the publication just the information
      that makes up a notice without creating a notice (e.g. one can
      publish a proposal’s text without creating a proposal)?

Fortunately, This Court does not have to opine on this matter.  It is
sufficient to note that none of the varied interpretations that can be
construed here would violate R101v as listed in (1) or (2) above, and
the mix of "CAN" and "PUBLISH" (if publish refers to the information and
not a Notice entity that is created by the proper publication) creates
an impossibility of enforcement as described in (3) above rather than a

There are several ways the paragraph in R2230 might be untangled that
would make the "prohibition" ineffective, but none of these seem to
involve R101.