====================================================================== CFJ 919 "Rule 1431 should be interpreted so that when a Player posts to the Public Forum a message containing information of a nature similar to that in a previous message by the same Player, and such a message further contains statements to the effect that the previous message was in error, and such a message further contains information correcting such error or errors, and no previous Claim of Error has been made concerning that message, then for each such error, a) that message is a Claim of Error for the purposes of Rule 1431, and b) that message is a Response to that selfsame Claim of Error for the purposes of Rule 1431." ====================================================================== Judge: General Chaos Judgement: TRUE Eligible: Andre, Antimatter, Blob, Chuck, Crito, elJefe, favor, General Chaos, KoJen, Michael, Murphy, Oerjan, Steve, Swann, Vanyel, Zefram Not eligible: Caller: Morendil Barred: - Disqualified: - On hold: Harlequin ====================================================================== History: Called by Morendil, Thu, 10 Apr 1997 00:23:52 +0100 Assigned to General Chaos, Mon, 14 Apr 1997 09:26:18 +0100 Judged TRUE, Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:04:35 -0500 Published, Thu, 17 Apr 1997 09:20:48 +0100 ====================================================================== Judgement: TRUE Reasons and arguments: Rule 1431 does not require that a Claim of Error be labeled in any peculiar manner to be effective; any message which is "a message posted to the Public Forum to the effect that a specific post to the Public Forum misrepresents the actual Game State, and documenting the nature of the error" is a Claim of Error. Therefore, the conditions specified in the statement are more than sufficient to justify holding part (a) of Caller's Statement TRUE. Furthermore, when such a message is posted by the Player who would be required to respond to it by Rule 1431, it can reasonably be assumed (viz. Rule 1497) that the Player believes that the claims made therein are true, and thus that e would admit them. Thus, there is no substantial reason not to treat such a posting as an implicit admission. Therefore, part (b) of Caller's Statement is also TRUE. ====================================================================== Rule Interpretation Injunction Request: The list of Relevant Rules is : 1431, 1687. I hereby kindly request of the Judge that e issue an Injunction to annotate Rule 1431 with the full text of the above Statement as well as this list of Relevant Rules. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge denies injunction: This court must regretfully deny the requested Injunction. This court finds that Rule 1687 is not relevant to this matter, whereas Rule 1497 is. Since Rule 789 does not allow the Court to modify the requested Injunction, this Court has no choice but to deny an Injunction in this matter, because of this inaccuracy in the List of Relevant Rules. ====================================================================== (Caller's) Arguments: (none) ======================================================================