======================================================================
                               CFJ 903

"The 'Frankenstein Monster' required for a valid CFJ in Rule 1671
 may be an ASCII drawing of a Frankenstein Monster, and a statement
 appearing as words within a cartoon bubble, pointing to the
 ASCII drawing."

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

Judge:                       Macross
Dimissal Appeal Justices:    Michael (CotC), favor (J), and Steve (S)
New Judge:                   Murphy

Original Judgement:   CFJ dismissed
Appeal Judgement:     Dismissal overturned
Final Judgement:      TRUE

Eligible:    Antimatter, Blob, Chuck, Crito, elJefe, favor,
             General Chaos, KoJen, Macross, Michael, Morendil, Murphy,
             Oerjan, Steve, Swann, Vanyel, Zefram

Not eligible:
Caller:      Harlequin
Barred:      -
On hold:     Andre

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

History:
  Called by Harlequin, Sun, 23 Feb 1997 22:04:34 -0500 (EST)
  Assigned to Macross, Tue, 25 Feb 1997 10:44:58 +0000
  Dismissed, Fri, 28 Feb 1997 03:00:02 -0500
  Published, Sat, 1 Mar 1997 17:27:48 +0000
  Dismissal appealed by General Chaos, Fri, 28 Feb 1997 07:58:54 -0500
  Dismissal appealed by elJefe, Fri, 28 Feb 1997 13:01:45 +0000
  Dismissal appealed by favor, Fri, 28 Feb 97 10:48:18 EST
  Dismissal appealed by Andre, Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:46:32 +0100 (MET)
  Dismissal appealed by Zefram, Sat, 1 Mar 1997 20:54:32 +0000 (GMT)
  Justices appointed, Mon, 3 Mar 1997 10:50:33 +0000
  Steve overturns dismissal, Tue, 4 Mar 1997 16:43:25 +1100 (EST)
  Michael overturns dismissal, Tue, 4 Mar 1997 10:20:57 +0000
  favor overturns dismissal, Tue, 4 Mar 97 13:28:52 EST
  Dismissal overturned, Tue, 4 Mar 97 13:28:52 EST
  Concurring opinion received, Thu, 6 Mar 1997 11:21:30 +1100 (EST)
  Appeal decision published, Fri, 7 Mar 1997 10:32:59 +0000
  Macross makes himself ineligible, Sat, 08 Mar 1997 15:38:15 -0500
  Assigned to Blob, Wed, 12 Mar 1997 09:12:57 +0000
  Blob defaults, Wed, 19 Mar 1997 09:12:57 +0000
  Assigned to Murphy, Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:06:43 +0000
  Judged TRUE, Mon, 31 Mar 1997 00:04:48 -0800
  Published, Thu, 3 Apr 1997 09:03:26 +0100

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

Judgement: TRUE

Reasons and arguments:

Rule 1671, in part:

      A Frankenstein Monster only has properties and effects as defined in
      this Rule.

Note the lack of "explicit".  It is possible that another part of Rule
1671:

      A Judge must dismiss a CFJ if one of the following is true of
      it:

        i) It contains no clearly-identifiable Frankenstein Monster.

implicitly defines a Frankenstein Monster as something that can be
contained in a CFJ, since it can be effectively restated as "A CFJ
must contain a clearly-identifiable Frankenstein Monster for the Judge
not to be required to dismiss it".

Since the Rules are silent on whether this implicit definition is in
fact the case, yet another part of Rule 1671 comes into play next:

      All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however,
      if the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the
      Statement to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider
      Frankenstein Monster custom, commonsense, past Judgements, and
      the best interests of the Frankenstein Monster before applying
      other standards.

Frankenstein Monster custom does not yet exist on this subject, nor
are there past Judgements on this subject (except for Macross's
overturned Dismissal).  However, commonsense and the best interests of
the Frankenstein Monster (i.e. failing to Annoy the Players with
Excess CFJ Blocking) both say that the implicit definition is
effective.

I will now list the other clauses of the paragraph of Rule 1671
originally in question, and explain why I believe that each of them
can be satisfied:

       ii) Its Frankenstein Monster can not logically admit to either
           being TRUE or FALSE.

A Frankenstein Monster is TRUE.  If it were FALSE, it wouldn't really
be a Frankenstein Monster.

      iii) Its Frankenstein Monster does not relate to a matter
           relevant to the Rules.

Any Frankenstein Monster relates to the Rules in the Frankenstein
category, and those Rules are a matter relevant to the Rules.

       iv) Its Frankenstein Monster fails to comply with the Rules.

It is possible for a Frankenstein Monster to comply with the Rules.
FM Harlequin has in fact done so, at least most of the time.

        v) It lacks standing, as defined elsewhere.

The ineffectiveness of this clause has already been argued elsewhere,
so I shall not repeat those efforts.

       vi) After a reasonable effort by the Judge to obtain all
           relevant information, no determination can be made of the
           truth or falsity of its Frankenstein Monster.

See my argument re clause ii).

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

Appeal of dismissal proceedings

Speaker's judgement:

I hereby overturn Judge Macross' Dismissal of the CFJ. Judge Macross
was cognizant of the provision in R1565 which makes legal only
dismissals made for reasons given in that Rule; hence he could not
consider directly the reasons set out in R1671. However, his attempt
to consider them indirectly by claiming that R1671 offers a definition
of 'standing' does not succeed. R1671 manifestly does not define
'standing', nor what it is to lack standing. None of the other reasons
for dismissing a CFJ given in R1565 appears to apply to CFJ 903. The
conclusion follows that CFJ 903 should not have been dismissed, but
should be heard on its merits.

CotC's judgement:

The crux of the matter rests on the Judge's decision to use conditions
in the Frankenstein Rule as justification for his dismissal.  This is
further justified by claiming that these conditions define what it
means for a CFJ to lack standing, thereby making the dismissal legal
by R1565/3.

I believe it to be an intolerable stretch to claim that the conditions
in the Frankenstein Rule define "standing".  In fact, due to the way
in which those conditions have come to appear in that rule, they also
claim that "standing" is defined elsewhere, a strange state of affairs
for a clause that is supposed to be defining that term.

I judge that the dismissal be overturned.

Justiciar's judgement:

I concur with Justices Steve and Michael, and find the dismissal of
CFJ 903 unjustified.  While Rule 1565 does have some flaws, it does in
this case succeed in prohibiting dismissal of a CFJ for the lack of a
Frankenstein Monster (or any other reasons listed in Rule 1671).  Rule
1671 does not define a lack of standing for the purposes of Rule 1565.

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

Concurring Opinion on Appeal Decision in CFJ 903

Blob and Oerjan have raised an issue not considered by the Justices in
their Appeal Decisions. This is that R1565 states that a CFJ must be
dismissed if 'it lacks standing, as defined elsewhere'. Might not the
'elsewhere' referred to be a dictionary, or Black's? And might it not
be that according to some definition to be found there, CFJ 903 indeed
lacks standing, and so have been correctly dismissed by Judge Macross,
if for the wrong reasons?

This argument is interesting, but it suffers an easy refutation. If it
were really true that CFJ 903 ought to have been dismissed because it
lacked standing according to some definition to be found 'elsewhere'
(e.g. in a dictionary or in Black's), then the same would hold for
every single CFJ submitted since R1565 took its current form on
Oct. 12 1996. But none of those CFJs have been dismissed. Ergo, game
custom is that, at least in this case, such definitions are irrelevant
to the game and need not be considered.

(signed: Steve, Oerjan, favor)

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

Original Judgement: that CFJ be dismissed

Reasons and arguments:

I hereby dimiss CFJ 903 as required by R1565 due to its lacking
standing as defined in R1671. R1671 requires that a CFJ contain a
"clearly identifiable Frankenstein Monster" which this Rule does not.

R1565 limits the reasons that a CFJ may be dismissed but the clause
"it lacks standing, as defined elsewhere" allows other Rules the
ability to supply other reasons why a CFJ may not qualify for
judgement.  R1671 defines other reasons for dismissal which, in my
opinion, can be allowed under this "lacks standing" clause.

      A Judge must dismiss a CFJ if one of the following is true of
      it:

        i) It contains no clearly-identifiable Frankenstein Monster.
       ii) Its Frankenstein Monster can not logically admit
           to either being TRUE or FALSE.
      iii) Its Frankenstein Monster does not relate to a
           matter relevant to the Rules.
       iv) Its Frankenstein Monster fails to comply with the
           Rules.
        v) It lacks standing, as defined elsewhere.
       vi) After a reasonable effort by the Judge to obtain
           all relevant information, no determination can be made of
           the truth or falsity of its Frankenstein Monster.

The above sentence from R1671 is a list of reasons why a CFJ must be
dismissed.  However, the dismissal of the CFJ can only be legal when
done for reason listed in R1565.  How then can I dismiss?  I believe
that this list could be seen to imply that a CFJ, which it requires be
dismissed, lacks standing to be judged.  Since this is a reason for
dismissal under R1565, I feel that I can dismiss on these grounds and
satisfy both Rules. Therefore I have chosen to dismiss.

It is interesting, and perhaps ironic, that I must dismiss the CFJ
because I wished to judge it to be False. My reasons for thinking it
False are due to this part of R1671:

      There is a Nomic Entity known as a Frankenstein
      Monster.  A Frankenstein Monster only has properties
      and effects as defined in this Rule.

While 1671 declares that a CFJ must contain a "clearly-identifiable
Frankenstein Monster", I see no properties defined in 1671 that would
indicate that a Frankenstein Monster is an ASCII drawing.  I must
admit however that I cannot determine how one could include a
Frankenstein Monster in a CFJ on the basis of the Properties that are
defined there.

In conclusion, I would like to say that in the event this Dismissal is
overturned I would urge the Appeals Court to Judge this CFJ False.

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

(Caller's) Arguments:

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

Clerk's notes:

Andre's argument has convinced me that Macross has not defaulted.  He
did submit a legal dismissal after all.  The rule that would attempt
to have him commit an Infraction doesn't apply, even if the dismissal
was "set aside".  This means that he is still the Judge assigned to
Judge the CFJ.

Interestingly, he can take as long as he likes to do so as there is
nothing in the rules which copes with this situation.  In fact, there
is now no requirement on him to do anything but consider the CFJ
again.  In other words, he could just sit on it.  (People could submit
the same CFJ again if they wanted to see it resolved of course.)

Unfortunately, I also believe that anything he now sends to me can not
be counted as a legal Judgement by the first paragraph of 591/6.  The
rules for appeals of dismissals seem to have effectively killed this
CFJ entirely.

However, Macross can choose to make himself ineligible as Judge.  If
he does so he's fined 2 Mil, but I am then able to choose another
Judge.  Note also that putting himself on Hold would constitute making
himself ineligible, and would also attract the 2 Mil fine.  Macross is
in an unenviable situation.

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