====================================================================== CFJ 1101 Rule 1567 should be interpreted such that a Player may only make emself ineligible to Judge a CFJ which has already been called. ====================================================================== Judge: Kolja A. Justices: Morendil (J), Michael (C), lee (pro-S) Judgement: TRUE Eligible: Antimatter, Blob, Chuck, Crito, General Chaos, Harlequin, Kolja A., lee, Macross, Michael, Morendil, Murphy, Oerjan (* note an error was made in selecting the initial judge; Antimatter and Harlequin were not given a chance of being selected. *) Not eligible: Caller: Steve Barred: - Disqualified: - On hold: elJefe, Swann ---------------------------------------------------------------------- First Appeal eligibility: On Hold: elJefe, Oerjan, Swann Originally ineligible: Steve Judge: Kolja A. Default justices: Morendil, Michael Eligible: Antimatter, Blob, Chuck, Crito, General Chaos, Harlequin, lee, Macross, Murphy (Rolled a six on 0-8 sided dice: selection is lee) ====================================================================== History: Called by Steve, Fri, 24 Jul 1998 16:37:14 +1000 Assigned to Kolja A., Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:05:42 +0100 Judged TRUE, Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:46:07 +0200 Published, Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:32:26 +0100 Appealed by Antimatter, Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:47:03 +0000 Appealed by Michael, Thu, 30 Jul 1998 09:21:44 +0100 Appealed by Crito, Thu, 30 Jul 1998 11:51:39 -0400 Appeal begins, Wed, 5 Aug 1998 09:29:51 +0100 lee appointed to Board, Thu, 6 Aug 1998 10:20:49 +0100 (Board is Michael, Morendil and lee) Motion 1 granted, Fri, 7 Aug 1998 12:18:33 +0200 Morendil OVERTURNS the judgement, Wed, 12 Aug 1998 05:03:45 +0100 Michael SUSTAINS the judgement, Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:03:41 +0100 lee SUSTAINS the judgement, Wed, 12 Aug 1998 12:56:21 -0500 Final decision published, Fri, 14 Aug 1998 09:35:25 +0100 ====================================================================== Appelate decisions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Justiciar Morendil: I hereby overturn Judge's Kolja's decision. I disagree with eir statement that "a challenge of such custom in a CFJ is enough to change it". If the origin of a particular custom has some basis in interpretation of the Rules, then I contend that Rule 217 does not allow a Judge to return a contradictory Jugement merely because of personal preference. I am of the opinion that "specific" and related terms, as used in the Ruleset and with the meaning that previous Game Custom have imparted to these terms, do not necessarily imply exact, individual specification of an existing and narrowly identified entity. Phrases such as "I hereby ABSTAIN on all Proposals up for Vote", variously qualified by conditionals such as "if possible", "if I have not already done so", or "I delegate the Assessorship to whoever is willing to take it up for a week", have in the past been accepted as legal. In that context of allowing 'loose' specification, which sometimes reach absurd extremes, I fail to see why a particular Rule should be singled out for a different interpretation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Clerk of the Courts Michael: I hereby SUSTAIN the decision above. The rule in question states that one may exempt oneself from judicial service for a specific CFJ by specifying that CFJ in a message to the Clerk of the Courts. I believe the language requiring the mention of a specific CFJ thereby requires the request for exemption to be made when that CFJ actually exists. A CFJ can only really be said to come into existence when submitted, as per Rule 991. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- pro-Speaker lee: I hereby SUSTAIN Judge Kolja A.'s ruling. I find eir reasoning sound and within the Rules. I want to add to eir statement a note on logic. If you make a statement 'All foo are blue' no foo need exist for this stamen to be true. Once you make a statement 'Some foo are blue' then for this to be true, there must be at least one foo, and at least one foo must be blue. To say there are some CFJ's that are specific CFJ's where i am ineligible to judge, the CFJ's would have to exist in order for that statement to be true. ====================================================================== Original Judgement: TRUE Reasons and arguments: The question is not new to me; the practice of making oneself ineligible to judge all CFJs called in a certain period of time has always struck me as against the letter of rule 1567. This never bothered me very much, as I think it is nice to have this possibility. I consider this an interesting example where game custom quietly accepted a practice that is against the letter of a rule; I think that a challenge of such custom in a CFJ is enough reason to change it and go back to the rules proper. I hope, however, that noone will advocate changes in past CFJ assignments that respected ineligibilities illegal under this CFJ. Anyone who thinks about doing so should have formally challenged the practice when it was begun. ====================================================================== Motions ------- 1. Motion to Annotate: I hereby file a Motion with the Judge of this CFJ that R1567 be annotated with a copy of the Statement. -- Steve ====================================================================== (Caller's) Arguments: I begin with the general observation that being eligible to Judge a CFJ is a Nomic property of Players in the sense of R1011, and hence can only be changed by procedures specified in the Rules. Hence if the procedure described in R1567 for changing one's eligibility to Judge a CFJ does not permit Players to make themselves ineligible to Judge CFJs which have not yet been called (as I contend), then, since no other Rule specifies such a procedure, that action is simply not permitted by the Rules at all, and the Statement is TRUE. The first paragraph of R1567 itself states that: A Player makes emself ineligible to be the Judge of a specific CFJ by transmitting a notice to the Clerk of the Courts, specifying the CFJ for which e wishes to be made ineligible. Attention should be drawn here to two points about this paragraph. The first is that it describes a procedure for making oneself ineligible to Judge 'a specific CFJ'. The second point is that the procedure described requires the the Player to specify 'the CFJ for which e wishes to be made ineligible'. I submit that a CFJ which has not yet been called and hence does not yet exist cannot meet the requirements of specificity in R1567. "All CFJs called in the next two weeks" does not name a specific CFJ, for example. Neither does "Any CFJ called by Chuck in the next month." Even "Any CFJ called by Chuck in the next three days concerning the interpretation of Rule 1567" does not, I claim, name a specific CFJ, even if Chuck actually makes a CFJ matching that description. 'A specific CFJ' can only refer to a CFJ which already exists in the full particularity of its details: its text, who called it, and when it was called. ======================================================================