============================== CFJ 1274 ==============================
t's Order of Wed, 14 Feb 2001, "I order everyone to make fewer bids
in the next auction." was improperly or invalidly executed.
Called by Oerjan: 15 Feb 2001 19:48:58 GMT
Assigned to Evantine: 16 Feb 2001 04:18:25 GMT
Judged TRUE by Evantine: 22 Feb 2001 06:52:12 GMT
Appealed by Taral: 22 Feb 2001 16:35:49 GMT
Judge Evantine's Arguments:
The CFJ was called under the auspices of Rule 1809, which states
"Both Administrative and Private Orders are subject to appeal by
a CFJ, the statement of which alleges that the Order is improperly
or invalidly executed."
The relevant standard for determining the validity of an order is
Rule 1796, which states, "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."
The order in question, which is repeated below in Exhibit A,
would fall under the category of either an "Administrative Order"
if it was done as the Assessor, or a "Private Order" if it was
done as an individual. We do not seek to judge whether the order
was Administrative or Private. Either way, nowhere in the
Rules is this type of order permitted, required, or even described.
Thus, we must assume that it was invalid.
It was suggested by David Maymudes that the fact that the order
was submitted to the discussion alias, rather than the business or
official alias, might be relevant. The Judge agrees with Kelly
Martin, who said that Private Orders are sent to the individual.
Even if we were to argue that the order was an Administrative
Order, not a Private Order, this Judge does not believe that it
would make a material difference in the outcome. If it was an
Administrative Order, it would have been invalidly executed anyway,
if it was submitted to the wrong alias.
Rule 1809 further requires that "upon a judicial finding that an
Administrative or Private Order was improperly or invalidly executed,
the Judge so finding shall vacate that order." That is done by
executing an Order to Vacate, as described by Rule 1799.
I hereby order that the order mentioned in CFJ 1274 be vacated.
Be it so ordered.
Judge Evantine's Evidence:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Wes Contreras wrote:
>If a summary of current auction bids could be posted, it would be
I order everyone to make fewer bids in the next auction.
teemu korkiakangas: email@example.com . http://www.iki.fi/scurra/
Lapsen tieto, naisen muisti,
ei ole partasuun urohon eikä miehen naisekkahan!
Evantine's Arguments for 1274.1:
I, Player Evantine, hereby make a Motion that the Judge for CFJ 1274, Judge
Evantine, issue a Judicial Order, an Order to Compel, against the Office of
Clerk of the Courts, of the following form: "As soon as possible, stay the
Order of Wed 14 Feb 2001 by Assessor t which stated, 'I order everyone to
make fewer bids in the next auction.'" I make this Motion under the
auspices of Rule 1809.
As Judge of CFJ 1274, I grant the Motion submitted by Player Evantine. I
hereby issue a Judicial Order to the Office of Clerk of the Courts:
As soon as possible, stay the Order of Wed 14 Feb 2001 by Assessor t which
stated, "I order everyone to make fewer bids in the next auction."
Staying the Order is required by Rule 1809, which states, "When the Clerk of
the Courts receives a properly executed Call for Judgement, the statement of
which alleges that an Administrative or Private Order was improperly or
invalidly executed, the Clerk of the Courts shall stay the Order in
As far as I can tell, this did not happen.
Am I empowered to execute such an Order? I argue that I am under rules
1794, 1828 and 1509. Rule 1794 defines a Judicial Order, which is an Order
executed by a Player while acting as a Judge.
Rule 1828 states that, "Any Player may formally request a Judge issue any
Judicial Order by filing a motion requesting that Order. If granted, the
Judge shall issue the Order requested." I have thus executed an Order which
is permitted by the Rule 1828. This would surely satisfy the requirements
of Rule 1796 for an Order to withstand the scrutiny of a CFJ, which states
"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."
In addition, Rule 1509 describes an "Order to Compel" which occurs upon "a
judicial finding that a Player has failed to perform a duty required of em
by the rules." As a Judge, my findings are by definition judicial, and I
find that the Clerk of the Courts failed to perform the required staying of
Note, I make a distinction between a Judgement and a judicial finding.
Nowhere in the Rules do I see anything that states that there may be no
judicial findings which are findings outside the Judgement itself. In this
case, I consider the granting of a Motion to be, implicitly, a judicial
finding. [Note: If a CFJ stating that "judicial findings" are exclusively
Judgements, not the granting of motions, were to be judged TRUE, then the
Order here issued is not an Order to Compel, it is an ordinary Judicial
Order under the power of 1828 and 1794 alone. In other words, 1828 and 1794
are sufficient to empower me to Order, but 1509 additionally empowers me to
make that Order an Order to Compel.]
BE IT SO ORDERED.