==============================  CFJ 2991  ==============================

    Quazie is a player.

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

Caller:                                 ehird

Judge:                                  Walker
Judgement:                              TRUE


Judge:                                  Walker
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by ehird:                        12 Apr 2011 00:21:01 GMT
Assigned to Walker:                     15 Apr 2011 22:39:35 GMT
Judged TRUE by Walker:                  16 Apr 2011 09:14:07 GMT
Reconsideration requested by G.:        17 Apr 2011 00:57:54 GMT
Reconsideration requested by Quazie:    17 Apr 2011 01:27:12 GMT
Reconsideration requested by Roujo:     18 Apr 2011 13:41:19 GMT
Assigned to Walker:                     18 Apr 2011 13:41:19 GMT
Judged TRUE by Walker:                  26 Apr 2011 15:58:22 GMT

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

Caller's Evidence:

On 12 April 2011 00:25, Quazie <quazienomic@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm a player if anyone wants me to be.

I want you to be.

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

Judge Walker's Arguments:

I think that "I'm a player if anyone wants me to be." pretty clearly
fits the "reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously"
requirement. It's fairly obvious that people want Quazie to be a
player (ehird even provided evidence to that fact). By contrast, If
Quazie had said "I will become a player is anyone wants me too", then
this might not have been clear enough, because of the "at that time"
requirement.

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

Request for reconsideration by <function player at 0xb6d4d5a4>:

Arguments
from Quazie:
> There is a meta question involved with CFJ 2991, mostly are state
> verbs able to be used in place of action verbs ('I am a player' vs 'I
> become a player') - it seems to me that by CFJ 2991 being judged true
> then we are setting a precedent that state verbs are equivalent to
> action verbs.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by ehird:

I find the precedent of CFJs two-nine-nine-one and two-two-nine-two
(my number keys are broken) disturbing, and intend, with two support,
to Motion to Reconsider them.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Walker:

I think that there's a problem with interpreting my judgement here.
R478 defines that 'by announcement' actions cannot be ambiguous - but
registering is not performed 'by announcement'. The requirement for
registration is 'reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously'. I
do not think that my judgements set the precedent you claim it does
because of this distinction.

No one is denying that Quazie actually wanted to become a player -
anyone who has read eir messages knows this. Obviously we normally
have stricter standards than assuming a player's intentions - actions
have to be unambiguous, and with good reason. There is a difference
with registration, however, because the standards are specifically and
deliberately laxer for this one particular action. Ruling that any
message which clearly intends to cause a registration, or at least an
ambiguous one, regardless of whether Quazie actually wanted the action
to succeed or not, would be vastly misinterpreting the relevant
paragraph of R869.

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

Gratuitous Evidence by Walker:

(comparing the two paragraphs, the first one does not apply
to registration):

      Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
      announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously
      and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
      it.  Any action performed by sending a message is performed at
      the time date-stamped on that message. Actions in messages
      (including sub-messages) are performed in the order they appear
      in the message, unless otherwise specified.

      -----

      A first-class person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or
      prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that
      indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e
      intends to become a player at that time.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by ehird:

On 19 April 2011 19:00, Quazie <quazienomic@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Elliott Hird
> <penguinofthegods@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I find the precedent of CFJs two-nine-nine-one and two-two-nine-two
>> (my number keys are broken) disturbing, and intend, with two support,
>> to Motion to Reconsider them.
>>
>
> Given that both were already being motioned to reconsider, does this
> add a support to those previous motions or not?

Ah. I support those, then.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Quazie:

I was uncertain if my registrations worked up until the final 'I
register' and was hoping that they would be CFJed on.  I was hoping
they would both skirt the line of ambiguity and test out old parts of
the ruleset (like act on behalf ofs) that I hadn't fully read up on by
the time i attempted to register.

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

Judge Walker's Arguments:

[CotC:  2992 did not have a Motion to Reconsider filed]

On 26 April 2011 16:47, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> I support G.'s intent to move to reconsider 2991. =C2=A0Quazie and ehird
> having also supported, I do so.
>
> I support Quazie's intent to move to reconsider 2992. =C2=A0ehird having
> also supported, I do so.

On 17 April 2011 23:27, Kerim Aydin <kerim@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011, Charles Walker wrote:
>> For the record, I don't think that this sets the precedent which
>> Quazie and G. are saying it does as the requirements for registering
>> are deliberately more lenient than the requirements for any other
>> action. A state verb would most likely fail to meet the requirements
>> for a normal action, where the rules about ambiguity are rather more
>> strict.
>
> I'll buy that. =C2=A0-G.

As per the arguments above, and the other ones which I wrote in
response to ehird's attempt to Motion to Reconsider, I judge both 2991
and 2992 TRUE again.

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