From - Sun Jun 17 11:18:47 2001 Return-Path: Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au ([131.170.42.16]) by tyner.mail.mindspring.net (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id su6ipl.fu.37kbi5q for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:00:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA15388 for agora-official-list; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:58:49 GMT Received: from fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (fw-in.serc.rmit.edu.au [131.170.42.1]) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA15382 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:58:45 GMT Received: (from mail@localhost) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id DAA06859 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 03:58:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from fido.kiva.net(206.97.64.41) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma006855; Wed, 11 Oct 00 03:58:34 +1100 Received: (qmail 12281 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2000 16:54:30 -0000 Received: from dial-149.bton.kiva.net (HELO klm02) (208.143.10.149) by fido.kiva.net with SMTP; 10 Oct 2000 16:54:30 -0000 From: "Kelly Martin" To: "Agora Official" Subject: OFF: Final Judgement in CFJ 1243: FALSE Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:53:55 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Precedence: bulk Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au X-Mozilla-Status: 8003 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 X-UIDL: su6ipl.fu.37kbi5q In this message: Appellate Judgements of pTang and Elysion entered The Bank incurs debts of 35 Stems each to pTang and Elysion. ============================== CFJ 1243 ============================== Chuck is ineligible to serve as a Justice in the Appeal of CFJ 1237. ======================================================================== Called by: Steve Judge: Wes Judgement: TRUE Appeals Justices: Chuck (S), Taral (J), Andre (C) Appeals Justices: t, Kelly, Blob Appeals Justices: Kelly, pTang, Elysion Appeals Decision: OVERTURN (FALSE) Judge selection: Eligible: Wes, Andre Not eligible: Caller: Steve Barred: - Had eir turn: Blob, Chuck, Elysion, Kelly, lee, Murphy, Oerjan, Peekee, Steve, t, Taral Already served: - Defaulted: - Previously Defaulted: Harlequin, Sherlock By request: Crito, harvel, Michael On Hold: Palnatoke Zombie: Anthony, Harlequin, Novalis, Schneidster Justice Selection (random): Eligible: Elysion, Murphy, Oerjan, pTang, Peekee Not eligible: Caller: Steve Barred: - Judge: Wes Dismissed: Chuck, Taral, Andre, Blob, t Service completed: Kelly By request: Crito, harvel, Michael On Hold: Palnatoke Zombie: Anthony, Harlequin, Novalis, Schneidster ======================================================================== History: Called by Steve: 22 Aug 2000 11:55:42 +1000 Assigned to Wes: 22 Aug 2000 14:59:00 -0700 Judged TRUE by Wes: 25 Aug 2000 00:10:04 -0700 Judgement Distributed: 25 Aug 2000 00:11:33 -0700 Andre calls for Appeal: 25 Aug 2000 11:34:40 +0200 Crito calls for Appeal: 25 Aug 2000 09:59:22 -0400 harvel calls for Appeal: 25 Aug 2000 13:57:53 -0400 Oerjan calls for Appeal: 26 Aug 2000 01:31:35 +0200 Kelly calls for Appeal: 26 Aug 2000 10:03:54 -0500 Appeal Distributed: 30 Aug 2000 19:27:38 -0700 Chuck, Taral, and Andre dismissed: 22 Sep 2000 Appeal assigned to t, Kelly, and Blob: 22 Sep 2000 07:45:25 -0500 Kelly returns Appellate Judgement: 29 Sep 2000 05:35:47 -0500 t and Blob dismissed: 06 Oct 2000 08:40:26 -0500 Appeal assigned to Elysion and pTang: 06 Oct 2000 08:40:26 -0500 pTang returns Appellate Judgement: 06 Oct 2000 10:05:45 -0700 Elysion returns Appelate Judgement: 08 Oct 2000 11:05:37 -0400 Final Judgement of FALSE entered: this message ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: I don't intend to argue for a specific Judgement, only to lay before the Judge the facts and relevant Rules for em to interpret. It's clear from the evidence above that Chuck's attempt to make himself ineligible occurred well after CFJ 1237 was called, since it occurred concurrently with Chuck's Appeal of the CFJ. Concerning the selection of Justices, Rule 911(iv) states that: A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true: iv) E was not eligible to Judge the CFJ that resulted in the matter under consideration when it was called, and this restriction does not prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the Board. As Ørjan has pointed out, Chuck was eligible to serve as the Judge of CFJ 1237 at the time it was called (more accurately, he was not ineligible by reason other than that of having had his turn, which does not make him ineligible to serve as Justice). So Chuck does not meet the criteria for ineligiblity to serve as a Justice in R911. However, R911 does not claim to set out necessary and sufficient conditions for eligibility to serve as a Justice. It gives only sufficient conditions. The possibility remains open that other Rules might make Chuck ineligible to serve as Justice in the Appeal of CFJ 1237. The obvious place to look is Rule 1567 (Making Oneself Ineligible to Judge a CFJ): A Player makes emself ineligible to be the Judge of a specific CFJ or type of CFJ by transmitting a notice to the Clerk of the Courts, specifying the CFJ or type of CFJ for which e wishes to be made ineligible. Such a notice remains in effect until the Player informs the Clerk of the Courts that it is no longer in effect. Does making oneself ineligible to Judge a CFJ include making oneself ineligible to serve as a Justice in the Appeal of that CFJ? If so, then we can read R1567 as adding to the possible ways listed in R911 that a Player can be ineligible to to be a Justice. I was initially tempted to reduce this question to a simpler one: is a Justice a kind of Judge? But on reflection, I think that would be an oversimplification. The relationship between being a Judge and being a Justice is very complex. For some Rules (eg, R451, R217) it is important that we interpret the word "Judge" as including Justices in its scope. Other Rules clearly treat Judges and Justices differenty where Salaries and timing of Judgements are concerned. So instead of asking the simple question, we should ask: is a Justice a kind of Judge *for a particular set of purposes*? I leave it to the Judge of the this CFJ to decide for emself whether e thinks that a Justice is a kind of Judge for the purposes of deciding ineligibility. ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: > From: Charles E. Carroll > Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 08:53:29 > > I too call for the appeal of CFJ 1237, but with different arguments > than those that Murphy gave. > > I also make myself ineligible to judge CFJ 1237. ======================================================================== Judge's Arguments: Our Arguments in this case are very simple. We start by rejecting the idea that a Justice is in any way a Judge. A Justice is one of the three Players on a Board of Appeals, per Rule 911. A Judge is the Player assigned to return a Judgement upon a Call for Judgement, per Rule 1868. The relationship between the two is strictly defined. On August 1, 2000, Chuck successfully made emself ineligible to be a Judge for CFJ 1237, per Rule 1567. On the other hand, Rule 1567 had absolutely no effect on eir eligibility as a Justice. None at all. Of course, there was already a Judge for CFj 1237, so this wasn't a big deal. On the other hand, maybe a new Judge would have to be selected at some point, and that newly selected Judge could not be Chuck. But wait! Rule 911 says that if you can't be a Judge, then you can't be a Justice. But the timing gets interesting. Rule 911 says that e is ineligible if "E was not eligible to Judge the CFJ that resulted in the matter under consideration when it was called". When what was called? Well, the general rule of pronouns is that it refers to the most recent instance of a qualifying object. In this case, that would be "the matter under consideration", i.e. the Appeal. Our opinion is that if a Player is not eligible to be a Judge at the time the Appeal is called, then e is not eligible to be a Justice on that Appeal. Since Chuck was definitely not eligible to be a Judge at the time the Appeal of CFJ 1237 was called, e was not eligible to be a Justice. We therefore return a Judgement of TRUE. ======================================================================== Judge's Evidence: ======================================================================== Failed Attempt at a Dissenting Opinion: [Clerk's Note: Although the Application stated that this Dissenting Opinion would apply to CFJ 943, we are including it with this CFJ due to it's apparent relevance in spite of absolutely no legal obligation to do so. The Application was unfortunately invalid, due to CFJ 943 having been distributed significantly more than seven days prior to this Application. It is our informed belief that Andre's intentions with regards to this Application were to have it apply to this CFJ, but was unsuccessful in doing so.] type of the application: Application to Submit an Opinion CFJ to which it applies: CFJ 943 label: Dissenting Opinion Judgement/Dismissal to which it applies: Judgement by the Judge Reasons and Arguments: > But wait! Rule 911 says that if you can't be a Judge, then you can't > be a Justice. But the timing gets interesting. Rule 911 says that e > is ineligible if "E was not eligible to Judge the CFJ that resulted > in the matter under consideration when it was called". When what was > called? Well, the general rule of pronouns is that it refers to the > most recent instance of a qualifying object. In this case, that would > be "the matter under consideration", i.e. the Appeal. We reject the reading that 'it' refers to 'the Appeal of the CFJ'. In the first place, nowhere do the Rules speak about 'calling an Appeal'. Thus, there is no 'time when the Appeal was called'. Certainly, the word is often used unofficially for the 'insistence' as mentioned in Rule 1564. It is natural to say that Game Custom allows the Rules to call such a thing 'calling for Appeal' without further specifying the meaning. However, the phrase here is 'calling FOR appeal'. Thus there is no time when an Appeal is called, only one at which it is called FOR. Even if we would conflate 'calling Appeal' via 'calling for Appeal' with 'insisting that something is appealed', there is still a problem of timing. Most CFJs, when appealed, have had at least three such insistances. Thus, there is again not one time when 'the Appeal was called', but three or even more such times. Another point is the meaning of 'the matter under consideration'. The Judge has taken for granted that this is the Appeal. However, just one line above, Rule 541 says: A Player is ineligible for selection if [...] iii) E has been Judge in the matter the Board is to consider. Now, one cannot have been a Judge of the Appeal. Thus, 'the matter the Board is to consider' in part (iii) seems to mean 'the CFJ'. This reading, however, is in contradiction to part (iv), where the CFJ is said to 'result in' the matter under consideration. If we could find a single reading that causes both to be meaningful, that would be preferable to using different meanings for almost the same term in different parts of the same rule. And we think there is such a meaning: "the matter under consideration" in Rule 911 apparently means "the Judicial process regarding a single CFJ". Again, this is something which either is not called, or is called at the time the CFJ is, certainly not at the time someone calls for Appeal. In our opinion, any of these arguments would be strong enough to win against the rule that the Judge quotes, since, in my opinion, this is an 'if there is no other good reason to believe otherwise' rule - and rather weak even as such. ======================================================================== Oerjan's Gratuitious Arguments: I wish to note that "matter" as it applies to appeals is also found in Rules 1570, 1564 and 1447, and here it clearly means "what is (becoming) under Appeal". Rule 1564 in particular seems to be what defines what a matter is: The Judgement entered in any CFJ by its Judge, the grant or denial of any Motion, and the execution of any Judicial Order are all subject to review on appeal to a Board of Appeal. In addition, a Board of Appeal shall review any claim that a Judge has failed to perform any duty of a Judicial nature which e was required to perform. These are the matters, not the CFJ itself or the Judicial process. ======================================================================== Appeals decision by Kelly: In the matter of the Appeal of CFJ 1237 [sic], I rule that the original Judgement be vacated and that a Judgement of FALSE be entered (that is, I reverse). I agree with Wes that a Justice is not a Judge. If some Rule was intended to apply to both Judges and Justices, it should say so on its face. I am of the opinion that the phrase "when it was called" in Rule 911 refers to the CFJ and not to "the matter under consideration" because none of the matters that a Board of Appeals may consider (see Rule 1564) are capable of being "called". Calling is defined only with respect to Calls for Judgement, and none of the matters in Rule 1564 are initiated by "calling" anything. I therefore interpret Rule 911 to make a Player ineligible to be a member of a Board of Appeals considering a matter which flows forth from a given underlying CFJ if that Player was ineligible to Judge that CFJ at the time that CFJ was called. Since, at the time CFJ 1237 was called, Chuck was (as far as I can tell) only ineligible to be a Judge of CFJ 1237 by virtue of already having taken his turn, he was eligible to be appointed a Justice on any Appeal flowing forth from CFJ 1237. Kelly Martin, Justice (sitting by designation) ======================================================================== Appeals decision by pTang: I rule that the original Judgment of CFJ 1243 is incorrect and should be reversed, so that CFJ 1243 be found FALSE. 1) A Justice is not a Judge. I strongly concur with Kelly's statement that a Rule that depends upon treating the two similarly should explicitly state as much. 2) The referent of "when it was called" in R911 is the CFJ. Therefore, Chuck was eligible for appointment to the Appeal Board. -pTang, substitute Justice ======================================================================== Appeals decision by Elysion: This seems almost trivial. Since I made myself ineligible to judge CFJs after CFJ 1243 was called but before I was assigned as a Justice, if I am eligible to be a Justice then the statement is FALSE, otherwise my ruling has no effect. I therefore move to OVERTURN the original judgement to FALSE. ========================================================================