From  Fri Apr 12 08:16:12 1996
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id IAA10786 for <>; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:16:10 -0500
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA21142; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 06:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (bulk_mailer v1.3); Fri, 12 Apr 1996 06:01:18 -0700
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.7.5/8.7.3) id GAA21084 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 06:01:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA21051 for <>; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 06:01:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from siesta ( []) by (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id GAA18052 for <>; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 06:00:38 -0700
Received: from pak by siesta (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA12991; Fri, 12 Apr 96 06:00:37 PDT
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 06:00:37 PDT
From: (Jeff Caruso)
Message-Id: <9604121300.AA12991@siesta>
Received: by pak (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA19185; Fri, 12 Apr 96 06:00:36 PDT
Subject: OFF: Judgement of CFJ 865:  TRUE
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

                      JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 865

  Whenever the Rules place some significance on the time when some mail 
  message is received by a Player, this should be interpreted to mean 
  the time when such a message is received by the email account 
  corresponding to that Player's email address; as a consequence, a 
  mail message is legally received when the machine which stores this 
  account's mail receives it, as opposed to when that Player actually 
  reads eir mail, and further, irrespective of whether such mail is 
  ever actually read by a Player.


Judge:          Steve
Judgement:      TRUE

Caller:         Morendil
Barred:         Kelly
On Hold:        dcuman

Eligible:       Andre, Chuck, Coren, Doug, elJefe, favor, 
                Jtael, KoJen, Michael, Murphy,
                Narcisse, Oerjan, Steve, Swann, Vanyel, Zefram


  Called by Morendil, Mon, 8 Apr 1996 02:26:06 +0100
  Assigned to Steve, Mon, 8 Apr 96 06:59:02 PDT
  Judged TRUE by Steve, Fri, 12 Apr 1996 19:17:10 +1000 (EST)


Arguments : the Rules, not being concerned with technicalities such
as crashed hard disks, mail transport protocols, and the like, use
"send" and "receive" only in the broadest meaning of the terms.

This Statement is consistent with at least one past Judgement, that 
of CFJ 707, which ruled that the time of effect of a post to the PF 
corresponds to the time when that message is received by the 
listserver. By analogy, a message to a Player presumably is "sent" 
when it is first handled by a mail transport protocol, and "received" 
when it reaches a machine which holds the account for a particular 
mail address.

It is my considered opinion that this Statement is also congruent 
with the best interests of the Game, in that if a message is legally 
received when a Player actually reads it, a Promotor could decide the 
order of submission of Proposals by reading them in a particular 
order, for instance.

In fact, since a good case could be made that mail lost through a
technical glitch is not conceptually different from mail deleted
through the voluntary act of hitting a 'delete' key, the possible 
consequences are even less palatable than a simple reordering of 

It would in my considered opinion be a not unreasonable
extrapolation of previous Game Custom to assume that whenever some
message of legal significance is lost, it has legally taken effect
at the time it first left the sending Player's account or reached
the receiving Player's account, or the Public Forum listserver, even
if a second posting may be necessary to ensure that the information
is recovered.

Nihilism should begin with oneself.

Decision of Judge Steve:  TRUE

I Judge that the Statement is TRUE. Judge Oerjan ruled in CFJ 866
that a Player receives a message when the message enters eir "normal
technical domain of control", a superb definition which it would have
been well beyond the ability of a Judge, such as myself, who lacks
Judge Oerjan's familiarity with technical workings of the Internet,
to devise. The Sponsoring by Chuck and Kelly, two other Players of
considerable technical expertise, of a Concurring Opinion applauding
Oerjan's definition, seems to me to add significant further reasons
for accepting the definition.

What remains is only to verify that the Statement of this CFJ is
consistent with Oerjan's Judgement, although it is phrased in
different language. Specifically: is the time when a message is
received by the email account corresponding to that Player's
email address the time when that message enters that Player's
normal technical domain of control? To the extent that one such
as myself who has only a superficial knowledge of such things
as mail spools, file servers, and the like, is competent to
understand the question and make a judgement upon it, it seems
to me that it is. So I Judge the Statement TRUE.

Steve Gardner                     |  Some people lose their sense of
Dept. of Philosophy, Monash Uni.  |  perspective. I've lost my sense   |  of scale.          -- Will Self