Index ← 1237a CFJ 1237 1238 → text
==============================  CFJ 1237  ==============================

    The Order issued by Chuck on Sun, 23 Jul 2000 17:17:02 -0500 was


Caller:                                 Taral

Judge:                                  Oerjan
Judgement:                              FALSE

Appeal:                                 1237a
Decision:                               REASSIGN

Judge:                                  Elysion
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by Taral:                        26 Jul 2000 04:59:45 GMT
Assigned to Oerjan:                     27 Jul 2000 01:30:08 GMT
Judged FALSE by Oerjan:                 27 Jul 2000 03:35:45 GMT
Appealed by Murphy:                     31 Jul 2000 06:43:15 GMT
Appealed by Chuck:                      01 Aug 2000 15:47:54 GMT
Appealed by Steve:                      19 Aug 2000 02:57:39 GMT
Appeal 1237a:                           19 Aug 2000 02:57:39 GMT
Appealed by Oerjan:                     19 Aug 2000 15:06:34 GMT
REASSIGNED on Appeal:                   02 Sep 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Assigned to Elysion:                    02 Sep 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Judged TRUE by Elysion:                 09 Sep 2000 00:00:00 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

The 24 P-Notes transferred were transferred with the intent of paying a
Fee. They were of the incorrect amount, and therefore failed to pay that
Fee. However since there is no provision in the Rules for reimbursement of
such failed payments, the Order is invalid. (Note that Fee paying is not
satisfaction of a debt.)


Gratuitous Arguments by Chuck:

[date approximate]

I argue for the Judgement of TRUE thus:

R1796 discusses the validity of Orders generally:

      In order to be proven valid by CFJ, the Rules must permit the
      Player who executed the Order in question to execute such an
      Order, that the execution of the Order must have been required
      by or permitted in the circumstances which existed at the time
      it was executed, and that the Order has not been rendered
      invalid by the operation of any other Rule.

My order was permitted by R101:

      Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by the Rules is
      permitted and unregulated...

and there is no Rule which would prohibit this private Order, nor
any making it invalid.

One might object that such a situation could lead to the abuse of
Private Orders, but this is not so; R1809 permits a Judge to vacate
a Private Order if it was executed either invalidly or improperly.
"Improperly" is not specially defined, and this is by design--specifically
so that a Judge may vacate such an abusive order.

However, this CFJ addresses only the validity of the Order in question,
and not its propriety.  Caller has not given any evidence that the
Order is invalid.  In any case, I would argue that the Order was
proper, based on a sense of fairness.


Judge Oerjan's Arguments:

This Judge agrees with the Caller that the Rules do not provide any
explicit authorization for the Order in question.

I also agree with the majority of Chuck's Arguments, but find that the
key issue is the interpretation of Rule 101 in this case.

I have examined the Rules to see to what degree they regulate the
authority to make Orders:

Rule 1799 regulates the basic authority to amend, stay or vacate an Order.
Rule 1804 modifies 1799 in cases of Appeal of Judicial Orders.
Rule 1828 establishes basic authority for a Judge to issue any Order
granted through a Motion.
Rule 1509 requires Judges to issue Orders to Compel.
Rule 789 allows Judges to issue Orders to Annotate Rules, Rule 1500 SLCs.
Rule 1742 allows a Judge (but neither party) to make Orders to remedy
breach of agreements.
Rule 1564 may allow a Board of Appeal general enforcement of its
determinations through orders.
Rule 1695 requires a Board of Appeal to Order various Vacations
dependent on Appeals of Judicial Orders.  (Um, why do Rule 1804 and
Rule 1695 have almost the same Title?)
Rule 908 requires Orders to apologize.
Rule 1504 and 1812 require Orders to impose penalties.
Rule 1599 allows Orders to satisfy debt.

This is an impressive amount of regulation of the authority to issue
Orders, both through requirements and permissions.

Now notice Chuck's extract from Rule 101:

      Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by the Rules is
      permitted and unregulated...

Note that there is no "respectively" there.  In other words, if
something is regulated by the Rules, then Rule 101 no longer
automatically grants permission.

This might not normally be enough to make it prohibited, however -
certainly we have no Rule saying that whatever is not permitted is
prohibited.  However, in this particular case we do have something, in
Rule 1796:

      In order to be proven valid by CFJ, the Rules must permit the
      Player who executed the Order in question to execute such an
      Order, that the execution of the Order must have been required
      by or permitted in the circumstances which existed at the time
      it was executed, and that the Order has not been rendered
      invalid by the operation of any other Rule.

I therefore regretfully conclude that Chuck's submitted evidence on
closer inspection disprove his argument, and so I judge FALSE.

Although the Caller has cleverly worded the Statement positively (thus
avoiding, for whatever reasons, Rule 1809 §3's requirement of a Stay
of the Order) I still believe that a Judgement of FALSE establishes
that the Order was invalidly executed, sufficient for §2.

By the powers invested in me as Judge, I therefore vacate the Order
mentioned in the Statement.


Gratuitous Arguments by Taral:

Motion 1237.1:

    I hereby move that Chuck be Ordered to pay the Bank 24 P-Notes to
    replace those erroneously transferred to em as a result of the
    Vacated Order.


Gratuitous Arguments by Oerjan:

 am somewhat of two minds on this issue.  First, fairness would indicate
 that Chuck should not have had to lose his P-Notes.  For that reason I am
 tempted to let Chuck get away with this.

 However, if Chuck had not executed the invalid Order there would have been
 no opportunity to get back his P-Notes in the first instance, and so a
 Judge would not have had any opportunity to consider such a Motion.  Now,
 this might be considered a loophole in the Rules, and a legal way to get
 around the flaw that accidentally incorrect Fees cannot be returned.  If
 it had been a stable loophole that could have been used by anyone in this
 fashion until the flaw was properly corrected, then I would have felt
 comfortable allowing it to be used.

 However, now the invalidity of the Order has been settled.  This means
 that any future attempts to utilize the loophole would run afoul of Rule
 1797 (Abuse of Authority.)  This means that Chuck, if allowed to get away
 with using this loophole, would be the only Player to do so.  This I do
 not find fair.

 Therefore, I hereby grant the Motion, and order Chuck to pay the Bank 24
 P-Notes for the indicated reason.


Judge Elysion's Arguments:

[date approximate]

As Justice Steve observed, this CFJ depends on three questions:

> 1. Was Chuck permitted in a general way to execute Private Orders?
> 2. Was Chuck permitted to execute this particular Private Order at the
>   time he executed it?
> 3. Was the execution of Chuck's Order rendered invalid by the operation
>    of any other Rule?

> The third of these questions is the easiest to answer, and the answer is
> 'no': no other Rule rendered the execution of this Order invalid. If the
> answer to the first questions is 'yes', then the Order was validly
> executed.

The first and second questions are equivalent because there was no
requirement at the moment that Chuck issued the Order in question that was
not present in "a general way," and similarly, Chuck's Order was permitted
if Private Orders were permitted in "a general way." If the answer to 1 and
2 is yes, then the Order in question was valid by rule 1796. To answer
these two related questions, we need to determine what is permitted by the
rules (and rule 101 in particular).

Two reasonable interpretation of rule 101 have been presented:

(1)   Whatever is [not prohibited] is [permitted] and whatever is [not
regulated] is [unregulated]...


(2)   Whatever is not [prohibited or regulated] is [permitted and

Was Chuck's Order prohibited, either generally or specifically (through
regulation)? I agree with Justice Wes that Judge Oerjan's argument based on
the number rules imposing various kinds of requirements on Orders is
unreasonable. However, Justice Steve points out that the making of Private
Orders _is_ regulated. Does this mean that Chuck's Order was not permitted?

In this case, the making of Private Orders is regulated, but not
specifically prohibited. If 1 is the correct interpretation, then Chuck was
permitted to make the Order; if 2 is correct, then rule 101 is not

I note that Notices of Transfer are regulated by 1598, and there is no rule
specifically stating that players may issue Notices of Transfer, but I have
seen no one argue that Notices of Transfer are not permitted. I therefore
find it reasonable to conclude that actions which are regulated but not
specifically prohibited are permitted; this is equivalent to interpretation
1 but is also consistent with interpretation 2. If interpretation 1 is
correct, then the statement is TRUE; if interpretation 2 is correct, then
"the Rules are silent" on this issue, and thus the statement is TRUE based
on game custom.

Thus, I judge the statement TRUE.