============================ Appeal 1316a ============================
Appeal initiated: 23 Aug 2001 14:36:31 GMT
Assigned to Taral (panelist): 27 Aug 2001 06:21:08 GMT
Assigned to Peekee (panelist): 27 Aug 2001 06:21:08 GMT
Assigned to Murphy (panelist): 27 Aug 2001 06:21:08 GMT
Taral recused (panelist): 07 Sep 2001 00:56:18 GMT
Peekee recused (panelist): 07 Sep 2001 00:56:18 GMT
Murphy recused (panelist): 07 Sep 2001 00:56:18 GMT
Assigned to Oerjan (panelist): 07 Sep 2001 00:59:07 GMT
Assigned to solublefish (panelist): 07 Sep 2001 00:59:07 GMT
Assigned to Crito (panelist): 07 Sep 2001 00:59:07 GMT
Oerjan moves to REVERSE: 11 Sep 2001 05:52:35 GMT
Crito moves to REVERSE: 11 Sep 2001 14:24:24 GMT
solublefish moves to REVERSE: 11 Sep 2001 14:36:57 GMT
Final decision (REVERSE): 11 Sep 2001 14:36:57 GMT
Panelist Oerjan's Arguments:
-After investigating, I have been unable to find any important
considerations other than the ones already put forward. It seems that it
hinges on whether the paragraph
Any Player can make a Silent Player a Zombie by publicly
alleging that the Silent Player has abandoned the game. A
Player has abandoned the game if and only if e is Silent. As
soon as possible after a public allegation that a Player has
abandoned the game, the Registrar shall publicly confirm or deny
that the Player is a Zombie.
in Rule 1042 can be taken to imply that a Zombie can be a Player.
It is clear to me that if it _can_ be taken to imply this, then it must.
The best interests of the game simply weigh in too strongly in this case
- the otherwise required, necessarily unreliable mass recalculation is
simply not acceptable.
I believe this can be achieved, as follows:
1) by interpreting the paragraph such that a Silent Player becomes a
Zombie at the time of the public allegation. This prevents the argument
(by caller Murphy) that Rule 1755 is not triggered until the Registrar's
2) by interpreting the registrar's duty as requiring that the Player
remain a Player until the confirmation.
I therefore move to Overturn and Reverse the Judgement.
Panelist Crito's Arguments:
First of all, I think it is clear that being a Player is a role that carries
duties and has powers, so that R1755 is relevant to the status of Players as
Zombies. If it were not for the second paragraph deferring to Rules that
specify roles which may be held by Zombies, then there would be no question
that the judgement should be upheld. However, R1042 describes the
circumstancesunder which a Player becomes a Zombie in terms that require us to
take a closer look at the situation.
First, it says that "Any Player can make a silent Player a Zombie..."
Secondly,it goes on to state that "The Registrar shall publicly confirm or
that the Player is a Zombie." The first sentence alone might be considered
ambiguous, since it could mean either that the Player takes on the additional
status of Zombie, or that the Player is changed from a Player into a Zombie.
But the second sentence removes that ambiguity. It clarifies that the PLAYER
is a Zombie.
So, R1042 specifically states that the roles of Player and Zombie are held
simultaneously and the precedence paragraph in R1755 takes hold. Someone
offered the argument that R1042 might make a Player a Zombie instantaneously,
at which point R1755 would kick in and then deprive the Zombie of Playerhood.
But there is no such delay mechanism (even an instantaneous delay) built into
the precendent system. If at any point, the circumstances exist which would
invoke a precendence clause, then it is invoked.
Therefore, it is my judgement that R1755 defers to R1042 in this matter, and
that Zombies may hold the position of Player. IMO, this is not even a matter
of game custom or best interests of the game, but a matter of the literal
meaning of the Rules.
As such, I hereby Overturn and Reverse the Judgement of CFJ1316.
Panelist solublefish's Arguments:
Well, I'm still not sure about this case, but since my opinion is moot at
this point, I'll go ahead and report now.
I move to Overturn and Reverse the Judgement of CFJ 1316.