====================================================================== 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. ======================================================================