From owner-nomic-official@teleport.com  Tue Feb 20 05:58:17 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 FAA27624 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 05:58:16 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA00916; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 03:30:07 -0800
Received: by desiree.teleport.com (bulk_mailer v1.3); Tue, 20 Feb 1996 03:30:06 -0800
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id DAA00906 for nomic-official-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 03:30:05 -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 DAA00894 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 03:30:01 -0800
Message-Id: <199602201130.DAA00894@desiree.teleport.com>
Received: by wing3.wing.rug.nl
	(1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA12379; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 12:28:23 +0100
From: Andre Engels <csg419@wing.rug.nl>
Subject: OFF: CFJ 856 Final Judgement: TRUE
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 96 12:28:23 MET
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

			JUDGEMENT CFJ 856

  Rule 113/1 should be interpreted to mean simply that a Player
  may always deregister from the Game rather than continue to
  play.  The other language in the Rule is merely a gloss on
  that basic content, illustrating some of its implications;
  it does not change the essential meaning of the Rule.

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

Judge:		Zefram
Judgement:	TRUE

Speaker:	Kelly
Judgement:	TRUE
CotC:		Andre
Judgement:	FALSE
Justiciar:	Steve
pro-Justiciar:	Michael
Judgement:	TRUE
Final Judgement:TRUE

Eligible:	Chuck, Coren, dcuman, Doug, elJefe, Ghost, Jtael, 
		KoJen, Michael, Morendil, Murphy, Steve, Swann, Wes,
		Zefram

Not Eligible:	
Caller:		favor
Barred:		
On Hold:	Blob, Dave Bowen
1005:		Pascal, Vanyel, Vlad
Judged already:	Andre, Kelly, Zefram
Defaulted:	Steve

Effects:	Zefram gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement
		The Rulekeepor need not annotate Rule 113 with the
		  text of this CFJ
		Kelly gains 3 Points for timely Judgement
		Andre gains 3 Points for timely Judgement
		Michael gains 3 Points for timely Judgement
		Steve does NOT gain 3 Blots as mentioned before

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

History:
  Called by favor, 5 February 1996, 15:27 EST
  Assigned to Zefram, 6 February 1996, 12:03 MET
  Judged TRUE by Zefram, 9 February 1996, 06:07 +0000 (GMT)
  Appealed by Chuck, 9 February 1996, 07:29 -0600 (CST)
  Appealed by Steve, 10 February 1996, 02:27 +1100 (EST)
  Appealed by elJefe, 9 February 1996, 10:33 -0500
  Assigned to Kelly as Speaker, 9 February 1996, 16:45 MET
  Assigned to Andre as CotC, 9 February 1996, 16:45 MET
  Assigned to Steve as Justiciar, 9 February 1996, 16:45 MET
  Delegated by Steve to Michael, 12 February 1996, timestamp lost
  Judged TRUE by Kelly, 16 February 1996, 00:53 EST5
  Judged FALSE by Andre, 16 February 1996, 12:02 MET
  Judged TRUE by Michael, 19 February 1996, 10:20 GMT

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

Reasons and Arguments:

  Rule 113 obviously says that a Player may deregister at any
  time rather than continue to play.  Does the other text in
  the Rule add anything to this meaning?  CFJ 826 tells us
  that the second sentence is merely a consequence of the
  first; the truth of the first implies the truth of the
  second, so the presence of the second sentence doesn't add
  anything to the meaning of the Rule.  (It just draws our
  attention to something that would have been true anyway.)

  CFJ 853 tells us that the Rule does not allow a Player to
  deregister retroactively to avoid a penalty that has already
  been imposed; therefore the Rule promises Players only that
  they will be able to avoid penalties which have not yet been
  imposed.

  Now common sense and Rule 101 tell us that the Rules have no
  effect of any kind on people who are not Players.
  Deregistration itself therefore prevents the imposition of
  any penalty that has not been yet imposed (since the person
  will no longer be a Player, and hence no longer subject to
  the Rules).  So the ability to deregister implicitly confers
  all the penalty-avoiding abilities that the Rule as a whole
  confers; therefore, the phrase "or incur a Game penalty"
  adds nothing to the meaning of the Rule.

  This seems to show the truth of the Statement above.  If the
  judiciary finds the Statement to be TRUE, I request an
  injunction requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate Rule 113
  appropriately.  The only relevant Rule I will list is 113
  itself.

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

Reasoning of the Judge:

  The judgment of CFJ 826 determined that the second sentence
  of Rule 113 is a consequence of the first, not an
  independent statement.  The sentences in question are:

      A Player may always deregister from the Game rather than
      continue to play or incur a Game penalty.  No penalty worse
      than deregistration, in the judgment of the Player to incur 
      it, may be imposed.

  Removing the explanatory second sentence (for that is all
  it is), we are left with

      A Player may always deregister from the Game rather than
      continue to play or incur a Game penalty.

  This is the essence of Rule 113; indeed, taking this to be
  the text of the Rule makes subsequent Judgments on the Rule
  much clearer.  There is no hint of allowing retroactive
  deregistration, for example, which CFJ 853 decided the Rule
  did not.

  This first sentence also matches quite closely the language
  of this CFJ:  "Rule 113/1 should be interpreted to mean
  simply that a Player may always deregister from the Game
  rather than continue to play".  I must therefore Judge this
  CFJ TRUE.

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

Injunction:

  I hereby make the requested Injunction, enjoining H.
  Rulekeepor to annotate Rule 113 with the text of this CFJ.

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

Decision, Reasoning & Injunction Speaker:

I quote from Michael's Judgement of CFJ 764:

   In this Judge's interpretation, it is clear that the second
   sentence of 113 is a consequence of the first; not independent.
   The second sentence is simply reiterating that a Player may choose
   to forfeit, thereby exempting them from the Game penalty.  The
   second sentence is tautologically true, given the first. 

Michael's prior Judgement allows the dismissal of the second sentence
of Rule 113.  Thus, all that must be considered is the issue whether
continuing to play subsumes incurring a Game penalty.  In this
Justice's opinion, it does.  There is no way in which someone might
incur a Game penalty while not also continuing to play.  After all, if
one ceases to play (that is, ceases to be a Player), one is no longer
subject to the Rules and cannot be forced to suffer any penalty (other
than the inherent penalty of not being a Player).  So Rule 113 would
have no substantially different effect were the words "or incur a Game
penalty" removed from the Rule, which is the heart of the Caller's
Statement.

Had Rule 113 instead stated "have a Game penalty imposed", I would be
forced to rule differently.  However, the consistent use of the
present tense in Rule 113 leads me to believe that there is no means
by which Rule 113 grants the ability to deregister retroactively in
order to evade a penalty, once that penalty has been imposed.  

I therefore uphold Judge Zefram by finding the Statement of CFJ 856 to
be TRUE.

I further recommend that the requested Injunction be granted.

Kelly Martin
Speaker, Agora Nomic
--

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

Decision & Reasoning CotC:

In the case of CFJ 856 I overturn the Judgement of the original Judge, and
judge FALSE.

Chuck's Judgement of CFJ 849 is an example of a case in which the rest of
Rule 113 is used quite undependently. Even if this Judgement would not be
upheld, it still is conceivable, or even probable, that such is true in
other cases.

Therefore the second part of Rule 113 is not merely a Glossary of the first
part, it also functions as an interpretation of it as well.

Andre,
CotC.

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

Decision & Reasoning pro-Justiciar:

Judgement: TRUE

Argument: 
  This statement is little more than a restatement of what was argued
  to be true in an existing judgement (#764).  Furthermore it is
  consistent with the judgement about to be returned by the appeal of
  CFJ 849.  Game Custom and the Agoran judicial system have hashed
  this over many times now, and each time the meaning of R113 becomes
  ever clearer. 

-----

Michael.