From owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Fri Apr 26 12:41:11 1996 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id MAA09246 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 12:41:10 -0500 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA03858; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 10:37:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by desiree.teleport.com (bulk_mailer v1.3); Fri, 26 Apr 1996 10:37:33 -0700 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA03715 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 10:37:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from torii.triple-i.com (torii.triple-i.com [192.94.150.1]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA03616 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 10:37:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Camex.COM (Camex.COM [134.54.1.1]) by torii.triple-i.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA02856 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 10:36:49 -0700 Received: from zeus.Camex.COM by Camex.COM (4.1/SMI-4.2) id AA02506; Fri, 26 Apr 96 13:38:09 EDT Received: by zeus.Camex.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA01430; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 13:38:07 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 13:38:07 -0400 From: jlc@triple-i.com (Jeff Caruso) Message-Id: <199604261738.NAA01430@zeus.Camex.COM> To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: Judgement of CFJ 869: TRUE Cc: jlc@Camex.COM Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Status: RO ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 869 Anything legal Action once performed by a person being a Player, even if performed while that person was not a Player, is an Action by that Player. ====================================================================== Judge: ElJefe Judgement: TRUE Caller: Andre Barred: On Hold: Swann Eligible: Chuck, dcuman, elJefe, favor, Jtael, Kelly, Michael, Morendil, Murphy, Narcisse, Oerjan, Steve, Vanyel, Zefram ====================================================================== History: Called by Andre, Tue, 23 Apr 96 16:34:09 METDST Assigned to ElJefe, Tue, 23 Apr 1996 10:59:32 -0400 Judged TRUE by ElJefe, Fri, 26 Apr 1996 13:35:16 -0400 ====================================================================== Arguments: Rule 869/3 says "A Player is any person who is registered as a Player." I think that's clear enough. The Player and the person are the same, they are synonymous. At the time of Registration there is no Player 'created'. What happens is, that an existing entity, the person, is placed in another category, namely that of Players. As extra evidence I give an abstract from my own Judgement in CFJ 833, in which I already argued the same point of view. As the person and the Player are thus identical, any Action by the person is an Action by the Player as well. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Evidence: 1. Rule 869/3 2. Judgement CFJ 833 (excerpt) ---------------------------------------- Rule 869/3 (Mutable, MI=1) Registered Players A Player is any person who is registered as a Player. A person is Registered to play when e sends a message to the Public Forum requesting Registration, unless another Rule forbids that person from Registering. No person may be registered as a Player more than once concurrently. If a Player has to be identified for whatever purpose, then the use of that Player's Agora nickname is preferred, but not obligatory: *any* unambiguous way of identification is allowed. ---------------------------------------- ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT CFJ 833 Rule 1011 should be interpreted so that if a Player deregisters, that Player continues to exist as a Nomic Entity. ====================================================================== Judge: Andre Judgement: FALSE (...) 1. A Player is not 'automagically' created when a person registers. What happens, as Rule 869 shows, is that the person (an existing entity, although perhaps not an Entity yet) becomes a Player, i.e. is placed in a certain Category of Entities. This can be compared with the way Groups became Organizations under the Group/Contest/Contract Consolidation: There were no new Organizations formed to correspond to the old Groups, but the old Groups were placed in the Category of Game Entities which are 'Organizations', and thus became Organizations. Likewise when someone registers, no new Player is formed, or even filled, but the person is placed in the Category Players. All this is implied by Rule 869, which equates the person to the Player, not just makes them correspond to one another. (...) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andre ====================================================================== Decision of Judge ElJefe: TRUE Statement: Any[thing] legal Action once performed by a person being a Player, even if performed while that person was not a Player, is an Action by that Player. This Statement is rather limited in scope. By its phrasing, the statement cannot apply to illegal actions. Nor can it expand the effect of Rules of the form "if a Player does X, e commits an infraction", if the person is not a Player at the time of the action. It can only apply in cases which are phrased "if a Player _has done_ X, ...", such as Rule 719. Finally, since non-Players cannot directly manipulate pure Nomic entities, the only "legal actions" that the statement could refer to are real-world activities like sending e-mail messages. For example, anyone may send a Kudo-transfer message to the Herald, but that message is not a Kudo transfer unless the sender is a Player at the time. Such messages do not become effective if the person later registers as a Player. The same holds for currency transfers, votes, etc. This comes perilously close to being dismissed as "not relating to a matter in which the Rules have bearing or concern." It is necessary to find a case under the current Rules in which this situation would make a difference. I have one: a Watcher asks a group Vizier to join eir Group. Later, the Watcher registers as a Player. Is this enough, under Rule 719, for em to join the group, or must e submit a new request _as a Player_? The caller argues that the person and the Player are identical, are one and the same person, and that actions (e-mail messages) by the one are actions by the other. This must be TRUE, and I so judge it. - elJefe, Judge ****************************************************************** Dr. Jeffrey L. Caruso Autologic Information International