Index ← 1519 CFJ 1520 1521 → text
==============================  CFJ 1520  ==============================

    Reasonable Doubt achieved a Team Win on Thursday, July 29, 2004.


Caller:                                 root

Judge:                                  RedKnight

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by root:                         29 Jul 2004 21:04:52 GMT
Assigned to RedKnight:                  01 Aug 2004 05:44:51 GMT
RedKnight recused:                      15 Aug 2004 05:44:51 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         15 Aug 2004 17:11:14 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     20 Aug 2004 18:57:20 GMT


Judge G.'s Arguments:

The following events occured in sequence:
(1)  A contest called Claustrononic was created by Goethe, hereafter
(2)  A Scorekeepor's Budget Item was created which referred to the
     entity of "Claustronomic", which at the time inarguably referred
     to CN-I and its Rules-defined name.
(3)  CN-I either ceased to be a Contest, or ceased to exist from the
     point of view of Agoran Law, leaving no Rules-defined entity with
     that name.  The fact that CN-I continues to exists as a "matter
     of Agoran law" is established by the precedent of CFJ 1328.
     But "Claustronomic" in the Scorekeepor's Budget is neither defined
     by the Rules, nor does it have a Rules-defined name.  It is an
     open question whether either of 1586p2 or 1586p3 applies.
(4)  root's Contest (CN-II) is created, and attempts to use the
     budget item in (2) to acheive a Team Win.

The question is, does the new Contest with the name "Claustronomic"
automatically attach itself to the Scorekeepor's Budget Item referring
to that name?  This Court find that it does not.  The Scorekeepor's
budget item is not a rogue pointer seeking a referent, but is a clear
reference to a specific entity.  While that entity may no longer exist
and may be unable to make use of the budget item (subject to CFJ 1518),
the creation of CN-II does not redefine the budget item in the absence
of defining legislation.

An analogy might be appropriate.  While Players' names are defined by
the rules, the names of former Players are not.  However, some former
Players hold Patent Titles.   A current Player could change eir name to
(for example) Waggie, and the name change would be legal.  However, no
reasonable court would allow the current Player to claim the Patent
Title Scamster held by the "original" Waggie.  Although such actions
might make the current player a scamster in eir own right :).  This
Court finds CFJ 1520 FALSE.