From firstname.lastname@example.org Mon Dec 20 22:33:19 1999
Received: (qmail 13456 invoked from network); 21 Dec 1999 06:37:02 -0000
Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (126.96.36.199)
by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 21 Dec 1999 06:37:02 -0000
Received: (from majordom-@localhost)
by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA02403
for agora-official-list; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 06:35:41 GMT
Received: from fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (fw-in.serc.rmit.edu.au [188.8.131.52])
by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA02380
for email@example.com; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 06:35:33 GMT
Received: (from Unknown UID 6@localhost)
by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id RAA29553
for firstname.lastname@example.org; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 17:47:23 +1100 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: fw.serc.rmit.edu.au: Unknown UID 6 set sender to email@example.com using -f
Received: from mail4.aracnet.com(184.108.40.206) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1)
id xma029444; Tue, 21 Dec 99 17:43:49 +1100
Received: from shell1.aracnet.com (IDENT:firstname.lastname@example.org [220.127.116.11])
by mail4.aracnet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA24288
for email@example.com.; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 22:32:30 -0800
Received: by shell1.aracnet.com (8.9.3) id WAA04553; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 22:32:27 -0800
Subject: OFF: CFJ 1188 Judged TRUE
To: firstname.lastname@example.org (agora-off)
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 22:32:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Kolja A. should not have been assigned to the Board of Appeals
for CFJ 1183.
Called by: Murphy
Eligible: harvel, Kolja, Lee, Michael, Palnatoke, Peekee,
Steve, t, Wes
Had their turn: Blob, Chuck, Crito, harvel
Already served: -
By request: -
On Hold: elJefe
Called by Murphy: 12 Dec 1999 01:39:27 -0800
Assigned to harvel: 12 Dec 1999 12:07:02 -0800
Judged TRUE by harvel: 16 Dec 1999 23:18:03 EST
Judgement Distributed: As of this message
This is a direct consequence of Rule 911, clause iv).
Evidence attached by the Caller:
Rule 911/8 (Power=1)
The Board of Appeals
When an appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be
selected in order to reach a decision about the consideration
mandated by the appeal.
A Board of Appeals consists of three distinct Players, called
Justices. The Clerk of the Courts selects the Justices for each
Board, as follows, until three eligible Justices have been
selected; The Speaker is selected, if eligible; The Justiciar
is selected, if eligible; The CotC is selected, if eligible; Any
remaining positions are then filled by random selection, by the
CotC, from all remaining eligible Players.
A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is
i) E has already been selected to serve on that Board.
ii) E has been dismissed as Justice from that Board.
iii) E has been Judge in the matter the Board is to consider.
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.
v) E is on Hold, and this restriction does not prevent three
eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the
A Justice is permitted to appoint another eligible Player to
replace em as Justice on a given Board, provided the Player
consents. A Justice does this by notifying the Clerk of the
Courts of the appointment.
Caller claims that the Statement is a direct consequence of Rule 911,
clause iv, which states that Players ineligible to Judge a CFJ are
ineligible to serve on a Board of Appeals for that CFJ unless that
condition would prevent there being three eligible Players.
Wes was the only Player eligible to Judge CFJ 1183. Kolja was doubly
ineligible, for e had requested that e not be selected as Judge. It
might seem that only Wes could be assigned to the Board of Appeals
(thus causing iv to kick in and allow any Players, even Kolja to be
possibly selected); however, according to Rule 1871, the Players
made ineligible to Judge a CFJ by having had their turn were not
ineligible to serve on the Board of Appeals for that CFJ. There were
at least three Players eligible to serve on the Board of Appeals
(in particular, elJefe, Kolja, Peekee, Steve, and Wes were not
eligible) without reinstating eligibility by iv. So Kolja was not
eligible to serve on the Board of Appeals for CFJ 1183, and should
not have been assigned as a Justice on that CFJ.