============================ Appeal 1224a ============================
Appeal initiated: 16 Jun 2000 00:10:34 GMT
Assigned to Taral (panelist): 18 Jun 2000 23:35:17 GMT
Assigned to lee (panelist): 18 Jun 2000 23:35:17 GMT
Assigned to Wes (panelist): 18 Jun 2000 23:35:17 GMT
Wes moves to REVERSE: 23 Jun 2000 05:02:11 GMT
Taral moves to REVERSE: 23 Jun 2000 05:03:43 GMT
Final decision (REVERSE): 23 Jun 2000 12:56:48 GMT
lee moves to REVERSE: 23 Jun 2000 12:56:48 GMT
Gratuitous Arguments by Taral:
Having discussed this issue together, we Justices provide the following
The first determination to make is whether or not the PO refered to
even existed. The Rules require that Administrative Orders (including
the PO executed by lee on 11 March) be "published in the Public Forum".
To "publish" is defined as "1 a : to make generally known b : to make public
announcement of 2 a : to disseminate to the public". It is our decision
that sending a message to a Public Forum with a reasonable expectation
that it would be forwarded to all Players is sufficient action to
"make a public announcement" or to "disseminate to the public". Since
Rule 1808 goes on to say that an Administrative Order does "take effect
upon publication", it is our opinion that the PO in question did indeed
exist at the time it was sent to the Public Forum. Specifically, it
existed on March 11.
The second determination is whether Elysion's blanket statement on
April 11 was successful at all. CFJ's 1214 and 1215 seem to form a
certain consensus on conditional statements which would also seem to
apply to blanket statements. Specifically, it is the opinion of this
tribunal that such statements based upon information legally available
at the time within the context of the Game are successful. Thus, the
blanket statement in question is generally successful.
The third determination is whether said blanket statement would apply
specifically to the PO which came into existence on March 11, even
though the Recordkeepor required to act upon the information was not
privy to that bit of information at the time. After great deliberation,
it was determined that the key point is not whether the Recordkeepor knew,
but whether the Recordkeepor should have known. In this case, since the
PO was distributed to a Public Forum, the Recordkeepor was *legally* aware
of the PO whether or not e was actually aware of it. The Rules do not make
that distinction, and we do not feel empowered to make that distinction
either. The Rules only address actual game state rather than any misguided
or incorrect perception of said game state. Thus, the blanket statement
does indeed include the PO made on March 11.
What about the comment Elysion makes after the actual action which
specifies a couple of PO's? It is the opinion of this court that such
comments, while perhaps interesting, do not have legal significance.
(a) the PO did indeed exist as of March 11
(b) the blanket statement was effective in addressing all PO's, as
determined by actual game state rather than imperfect perception
(c) thus the blanket statement did satisfy the PO in question
It was a sore temptation to Rule that the perceived game state was of
greater importance due to the apparent availability of the information.
The pitfalls of such an approach are many, although the drawbacks are not
immediately obvious. In general, the conclusion was that any actual
actions based solely upon perception would be unwise.
Also, due to the potential for abuse, we strongly recommend legislation
to ban the intentional tampering with the delivery of email.
Taral, Lead Justice