====================================================================== CFJ 910 "Les règles permettent la soumission des Demands de Jugement aux autres langues qu'Anglais; en plus, le Juge de cette DdJ ne peut pas la rejeter seulement à cause de sa langue de soumission." ====================================================================== Judge: favor Justices: Michael (C), favor (J), Steve (S) 1st Judgment: DISMISSAL Appeal jdgmt: Dismissal OVERTURNED Judgement: VRAI Eligible: (Andre),(Antimatter), Blob, (Chuck), Crito, elJefe, favor, General Chaos, Harlequin, (KoJen), (Macross), Michael, Morendil, Murphy, Oerjan, Steve, (Swann), Zefram Not eligible: Caller: Vanyel Barred: - Disqualified: Swann, Antimatter, Andre, KoJen, Chuck On hold: - ====================================================================== History: Called by Vanyel, Sat, 15 Mar 1997 04:25:53 -0600 Assigned to Swann, Thu, 20 Mar 1997 09:38:26 +0000 Swann defaults Re-assigned to Antimatter, Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:18:25 +0100 Dismissed, Sun, 6 Apr 1997 13:32:17 -0800 Published, Mon, 14 Apr 1997 09:39:27 +0100 Appealed by Michael, Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:02:50 +0100 Appealed by Oerjan, Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:13:48 +0200 (MET DST) Appealed by General Chaos, Mon, 14 Apr 1997 08:05:23 -0500 Appealed by Morendil, Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:03:22 +0200 Appeals process begun, Thu, 17 Apr 1997 09:06:26 +0100 Steve OVERTURNS dismissal, Fri, 18 Apr 1997 13:45:30 +1000 (EST) favor OVERTURNS dismissal, Fri, 18 Apr 97 09:45:14 EDT -0400 Michael OVERTURNS dismissal, Mon, 21 Apr 1997 10:02:44 +0100 Appeal published, Fri, 25 Apr 1997 10:09:33 +0100 Assigned to Andre, Fri, 25 Apr 1997 10:09:33 +0100 Andre defaults. Assigned to KoJen, Tue, 6 May 1997 11:53:47 +0100 KoJen defaults. Assigned to Chuck, Mon, 19 May 1997 09:35:28 +0100 Chuck becomes ineligible, Sat, 24 May 1997 16:46:36 -0500 (CDT) Assigned to favor, Thu, 29 May 1997 10:47:51 +0100 Judged VRAI, Thu, 29 May 97 10:52:24 -0400 (EDT) Published, Thu, 29 May 1997 16:34:11 +0100 ====================================================================== Judgement: VRAI Reasons and arguments: The Rules seem to be silent on the issue of what language Agoran communication must be in, with the exception of Rule 754, which says very broadly that, as long as there is no ambiguity, differences of spelling, grammar, dialect, and synonym-substitution are inconsequential. The consensus of the Justices was that synonymy may cross language boundaries, and this seems to me to imply that there is no requirement in the Rules that business be conducted in any particular language. I think that a particular Judge *could* conceivably dismiss a CFJ in a language that e did not speak, not because of the language it was in, but rather because it was incomprehensible to em (a CFJ in English could be dismissed for the same reason, on the grounds that Rule 754's words about a lack of ambiguity, and Rule 1563's requirements on the Statement, were not satisfied relative to that Judge). But even in that case it would not be *solely* the language of submission that was causing the rejection (since at least in principle some other CFJ in the same language might contain enough cognates for the Judge to be confident enough to Judge it). So I find that, while each Judge must weigh the comprehensibility of any CFJ put before em, there is nothing in the Rules of Agora that requires CFJs to be in any particular language, and that language of submission alone is not justification for rejecting a CFJ. In that spirit, I Judge this Statement VRAI. ====================================================================== Dismissal appeal proceedings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Speaker's judgement: OVERTURN Reasons and arguments: I hereby overturn Judge Antimatter's decision to dismiss the CFJ. It seems clear to me at least that 'DdJ' is an acronym in French of the phrase 'Demand de Jugement', which is synonymous (in the sense of having the same meaning as) 'Call for Judgement'. Rule 754 seems to me to apply in this case. The Statement, although in French, is nevertheless clearly about what kinds of Calls for Judgement may legally be made and this is a question which Agoran Courts may legimitately address. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Justiciar's judgement: OVERTURN Reasons and arguments: I find the dismissal unjustified, although I am not entirely unsympathetic to the Judge's reasoning. In particular, it is not entirely clear whether the notion of synonymy that appears in Rule 754 can be applied across languages. If "Demand de Jugement" is a synonym for "Call for Judgement", then Rule 754 applies, and the CFJ in question is about CFJ's, and therefore quite relevant to the Rules, and may not be dismissed for irrelevance. On the other hand, if two phrases can be synonyms only if they are in the same language, then Rule 754 would not apply. I have consulted those references that are to hand, and I can find no indication that synonyms must be in the same language. While examples of synonyms are usually both in the same language, a few examples turned up on the Web that might be considered cross-language: for instance, various pages give the common names of plants and "Synonym:" followed by the Latin name. That evidence, and the general spirit of R754, suggest that when two words clearly have the same meaning, the fact that they are in different languages does not prevent them from being synonyms, so Rule 754 applies, and this CFJ should not be dismissed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CotC's judgement: OVERTURN Reasons and arguments: that "... substitution of a word or phrase by a synonym or abbreviation [is] inconsequential in all forms of Nomic communication, as long as there is no ambiguity in meaning." Webster's Online says that a "synonym" is "One of two or more words (commonly words of the same language) which are equivalents of each other; one of two or more words which have very nearly the same signification, and therefore may often be used interchangeably." Clearly then the phrase "Demand de Jugement" (and the associated abbreviation "DdJ") are synonyms for "Call for Judgement", and the question of the CFJ is of relevance to the game. Therefore the Judge's dismissal is not justified. ====================================================================== Original Judgement: to dismiss the CFJ Reasons and arguments: I am dismissing Vanyel's CFJ for the reason that whether or not a DdJ can be made in a language other than English is irrelevant to the rules. ====================================================================== (Caller's) Arguments: Les règles ne disent jamais d'une langue obligatoire. Heureusement, je ne sais rien de langue très étrange... :) ======================================================================