From owner-nomic-official@teleport.com  Fri Feb  2 10:40:37 1996
Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA27125 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Fri, 2 Feb 1996 10:40:35 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA11790; Fri, 2 Feb 1996 08:23:30 -0800
Received: by desiree.teleport.com (bulk_mailer v1.3); Fri, 2 Feb 1996 08:23:29 -0800
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id IAA11764 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 1996 08:23:28 -0800
Received: from wing3.wing.rug.nl (wing3.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.3]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA11713 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Fri, 2 Feb 1996 08:23:24 -0800
Message-Id: <199602021623.IAA11713@desiree.teleport.com>
Received: by wing3.wing.rug.nl
	(1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA10107; Fri, 2 Feb 1996 17:22:23 +0100
From: Andre Engels <csg419@wing.rug.nl>
Subject: OFF: CFJ 847 Judgement: TRUE
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 96 17:22:22 MET
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

			JUDGEMENT CFJ 847

       "The Rules should be interpreted that deregistration, by
        definition, when inintiated by the deregistering Player, occurs
        at the time the Player makes the request to deregister-- even
        when Rule 113 is invoked upon deregistration."

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

Judge:		Murphy (defaulted)
		favor
Judgement:	TRUE

Eligible:	dcuman, favor, Jtael, Kelly, KoJen, Steve, Wes, Zefram

Not Eligible:	
Caller:		Swann
Barred:		Morendil
On Hold:	Blob, Dave Bowen, elJefe
1005:		Andre, Michael, Pascal, Swann, Vanyel, Vlad
Defaulted:	Murphy

Effects:	Murphy gains 3 Blots for defaulting
		Murphy is not eligible to act as a Judge
		favor gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement

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

History:
  Called by Steve, 22 January 1996, 16:27 -0500
  Assigned to Murphy, 23 January 1996, 12:55 MET
  Defaulted by Murphy, 30 January 1996, 12:55 MET
  Assigned to favor, 2 February 1996, 14:58 MET
  Judged TRUE by favor, 2 February 1996, 10:53 EST

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

Arguments:

These need no arguments, all relivant info has spammed the PF over the period
of crisis.  I, in fact, have little oppinion on how these Statements should
be resolved and will offer no argumenrts other than to plead for a difinitive
and comprehensive judgement from the Judge on each of these so we can legally
end the indertermancy of the gamestate.

I would also ask interested parties to submit CFJs on the nature of the
Currency Transfers that initiated the crisis.  I, myself, have avoided the
issue and lack the knowledge to come up with a difinitve statement for
a CFJ.

Swann
              
======================================================================

Reasons and Arguments, Judge:

  The Rules that cover self-initiated deregistration are few, and
  relatively clear.  In particular, Rule 1043 defines the basic
  mechanism for it, and explicitly states that deregistration occurs
  at the time stamped on the message (it doesn't say exactly which
  of the various possible times, but as the same ambiguity occurs
  in the Statement here Judged, and as we have Game Custom on the
  issue, that's not a problem).  Rule 1042 also describes a means
  of deregistration, but not of a sort "initiated by the
  deregistering Player".

  Rule 113 assures that Players may, despite any ordinary Rule
  to the contrary, always deregister at any time.  Looking back,
  it would have been best if the Rule had just stopped there.
  The extra "rather than..." and "No penalty..." clauses of
  that Rule in fact add nothing to the sense of the Rule, but
  have caused considerable judicial activity.

  Fortunately, the Judgement in CFJ 853 tells us that Rule 113,
  whatever else it may do, does not allow deregistration to be
  retroactive.  Since there is no reason to think that it allows
  deregistration to be *proactive* (i.e. in the future), the
  only remaining sort of deregistration is the obvious kind
  that takes place, per Rule 1043, at the time of the message.
  Hence this Judgement is TRUE.

  The Judge would recommend to all future Judges dealing
  with Rule 113/1 that they read it as though it simply said
  "A Player may always deregister from the Game rather than
  continue to play".  That's what it means, and the other
  verbiage is too easy to misinterpret.

  Respectfully submitted,

  Judge favor