From firstname.lastname@example.org Tue Feb 20 05:58:17 1996 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [18.104.22.168]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id FAA27624 for <email@example.com>; 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 [22.214.171.124]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA00894 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 03:30:01 -0800 Message-Id: <199602201130.DAA00894@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing3.wing.rug.nl (126.96.36.199/16.2) id AA12379; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 12:28:23 +0100 From: Andre Engels <email@example.com> Subject: OFF: CFJ 856 Final Judgement: TRUE To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Tue, 20 Feb 96 12:28:23 MET Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org 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.