==============================  CFJ 2897  ==============================

    ehird was a Rebel in the most recent Rebellion.

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

Caller:                                 scshunt

Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              TRUE


Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by scshunt:                      09 Nov 2010 01:24:37 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     15 Nov 2010 00:17:03 GMT
Judged TRUE by ais523:                  20 Nov 2010 22:25:03 GMT
Reconsideration requested by Murphy:    22 Nov 2010 02:07:33 GMT
Reconsideration requested by scshunt:   22 Nov 2010 02:40:03 GMT
Reconsideration requested by Yally:     22 Nov 2010 02:49:40 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     22 Nov 2010 02:49:40 GMT
Judged TRUE by ais523:                  23 Nov 2010 14:59:50 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

ehird sent a message saying 'me too' to a-b in reply to my message, which
contained only me declaring that I rebel and a signature.

While it was not explicitly quoted, I think it was sufficiently
unambiguous, given that the message was referred to in the headers and
included only one action.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

CFJ 2777:  headers can be used as context *if* the body of the message
somehow clearly refers to them.

I'd say this reference is not entirely clear (though even Wooble knew
what it referred to even if e thought it didn't work) so is right smack
on the borderline of acceptable.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

[CotC: alleged judgement of TRUE involved similar subject-line ambiguity; if
it was effective, then this alleged judgement wasn't]

If I haven't already done so, I judge CFJ 2897 FALSE.

Arguments: I think everyone can agree that this definitely gives the CFJ
the correct judgement.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

There isn't much rules or precedence
basis to rule this either way. However, as far as I can tell, a subject
line is sent via the forum, and visible enough that it's not obscure or
an attempt to sneak actions past other players. Quoting another message,
especially on a case where many people will want to react to it, invites
a search for looking elsewhere on the message (say, the subject line) to
figure out what actions are being taken. (If there was a Re: in the
subject line, or other lines that show it wasn't conciously meant to
take an action, this line of reasoning wouldn't apply.)

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

Request for reconsideration by <function player at 0xb6d4d924>:

I intend (with 2 support) to file a Motion to Reconsider the question
of veracity for CFJ 2897, requesting that the judge explicitly choose
an interpretation the second time around.

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

Judge ais523's Arguments:

I'm having problems with the CFJ in question. The problem is that game
custom and past CFJs give a strong indication that ehird's attempt
failed; but the rules, to me, give a weak indication that it succeeded,
and they take precedence. (As far as I can tell, subject lines are sent
via the fora along with the rest of the message, and the only thing that
could cause that to /not/ take an action is if it's too ambiguous to
succeed. Hidden email headers are one thing, where there's ambiguity
caused by the fact that people might not see the header in question, but
with a plainly visible header like the subject line, in a situation
where the subject line is clearly deliberately changed to take a message
(e.g. because it's a reply to another message and has been deliberately
edited, like it was in ehird's case), I can't see a rules-based reason
to disallow it.

Additionally, I don't see why everyone's annoyed with me for not judging
this sooner. For one thing, it's II 0 and thus, by definition,
uninteresting and unimportant. For another thing, CFJ judgements are not
definitive. A judgement in this matter is entirely useless if it turns
out to be incorrect. Sure, I could just say TRUE or FALSE with some
reasonable reasoning (which I did!), but that doesn't mean that the
verdict is necessarily platonically correct. If you want certainty about
the gamestate, I suggest you sort it out pragmatically, via urgent
proposal or ratification or whatever; attempting to deduce the platonic
gamestate in a situation as balanced as this is fraught with danger, due
to the chance of getting the wrong result.

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