==============================  CFJ 2886  ==============================

    In the message quoted in evidence, Tanner L. Swett gained at least
    one erg.

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

Caller:                                 Murphy
Barred:                                 Machiavelli

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by Murphy:                       08 Oct 2010 21:49:48 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         17 Oct 2010 21:23:48 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     17 Oct 2010 22:56:42 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

CFJ 1935 involved omd (then nicknamed comex) scamming Rule 1504, which
at the time read in part

      * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred
        at least 200 days before the case was initiated

by identifying a violation that e committed, then making a false (but
disclaimered) allegation about when e committed it, thus triggering
this clause (and blocking further prosecution of the same violation
due to double jeopardy).

The difference is that CFJ 1935 didn't involve any reference-stealing;
the relevant clause was intended to refer to an allegation made by the
plaintiff (it simply failed to account for the plaintiff's ability to
lie, and was later fixed to refer to when the violation actually
occurred).  In contrast, Rule 2289 (Capacitors) reads in part

      When an event is described as earning a player a number of
      farads,

which was intended to refer to the rules making such a description,
such as the two that appear in Rule 2295 (Rewards).

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

Caller's Evidence:

Tanner L. Swett wrote:

> I resign from all offices and become supine. I describe my becoming
> supine just now as earning me 2*3^35,000 farads; for this action, I
> award myself 3^35,000 ergs. I pay fees to destroy all my rests, then
> pay fees to destroy ergs in my possession until I have at most
> 3^34,999+2 ergs. I then pay fees to award myself 3^34,998 capacitors.
>
> I'm pretty sure that all of these actions succeed, by the precedent of CFJ
1935.

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

Judge G.'s Arguments:

There are several places in the rules where the term "described" is
used without the qualifier "in the rules".  In particular, the term
"as described elsewhere" is in the Rules several times without
explicitly stating that the "elsewhere" in question must be within the
Rules.  In each of these places, the rules are *wholly silent* on where
the "elsewheres" of the descriptions may or may not be found.  (In some
places, the full phrase "elsewhere in the rules" is, in fact, used).

Some of these places are quite dangerous; for example, procedures for
adopting Agoran proposals may be described "elsewhere" (R106).

Therefore, in light of this complete silence, I use the powers granted
me by R217, and state that it is (a) for the good of the game; (b) in
keeping with game custom; and (c) in keeping with the primacy of R754(2)
definitional clauses (if "definitions" are extended to "descriptions"),
to assume, prima facie, that when a document defers to other descriptions
without stating a location for the descriptions, or while stating
"elsewhere", that said locations must occur within the same document
unless the document explicitly delagates description abilities to some
other entity.  In this case, the Rule doesn't.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

After re-reading the rules that use "describe", I find that "describe"
in a formal-rules sense is essentially synonymous with "define"; i.e.,
to "describe" a process in the rules is to define the process, or to
describe an event as associated with an award is to define the event
as being associated with the award.  As such, "describe" falls under
the purview of R754 even more than I previously stated; the Rules may
define/describe something, and common definitions may do so (but there
is no "common" English definition for something being worth a particular
amount of an Agoran asset, or for an Agoran decision, etc.), but
persons in general can not arbitrarily define/describe such game
aspects to suit themselves.  This is not a change in judgement, just a
shift in precedent towards a more formal definitional setting governed
by R754 and away from a more general "good of the game" argument.

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