============================== CFJ 1606 ==============================
Goethe was deregistered in a Writ of FAGE in December 2006.
Called by G.: 11 Jan 2007 18:38:57 GMT
Assigned to Quazie: 31 Jan 2007 13:03:46 GMT
Quazie recused: 21 Feb 2007 18:10:52 GMT
Assigned to arkestra: 21 Feb 2007 18:10:52 GMT
arkestra recused: 23 Mar 2007 21:12:29 GMT
Assigned to Murphy: 23 Mar 2007 23:12:30 GMT
Dismissed by Murphy: 30 Mar 2007 14:16:30 GMT
I argue for a judgement of FALSE.
If an officer is required to perform a set of actions (i.e. a
multistep procedure) it is unclear if inability to perform one
of the steps invalidates the whole procedure. Some procedures
have specified whether or not this is true, (e.g. Notice of Speaker Transition
being invalid if it was incorrect in any
of its particulars, Application to Create an Organization being
invalid if any pieces were missing, e.g. CFJ 1335). These are generally seen
as single actions (a single Notice, a single Application) so it is reasonable
to assume that game
custom on single actions is that a missing piece invalidates
On the other hand, lists of discrete, sequential actions (for example, on a
numbered list) are such that if one piece doesn't work, actions leading up
still do although subsequent dependencies
may fail (this happened several times with Cards unchallenged, I'm not aware
of a specific CFJ precedent). This argument was
presented by Zefram:
> It's trivial: game custom is that where part of a Rule
> makes no sense then the remainder of it is applied as far as possible. The
CotC's posting of the Writ deregisters the Player, and the "instructing the
Registrar" bit is null.
I would argue against this interpretation. It is clear that a Writ of FAGE is
a single, whole document of legal, formal, and emotional significance. As
such, it is much more like an Application or Notice than like a sequential
list, even if the notice lists components sequentially ("commanding the player
and instructing the Registrar").
Therefore it is game custom, and keeping with the formality and
dignity of a Writ of FAGE (in particular, the intent that the FAGE
of the player be recorded for posterity), that if a piece is missing, the
whole is invalid, so that the player is not deregistered without the dignity
of receiving eir due process and place in history. The Writ of FAGE was not
posted, and Goethe
was not deregistered.
Finally, I would note that this CFJ is essentially the same
subject as CFJ 1594. As such, normally a judge should DISMISS
this CFJ or follow the precedent of CFJ 1594. However, CFJ 1594's
authority as a decision is in paradox (or at least contested) and perhaps not
appealable and I would suggest that this current
CFJ (decided as true or false) is the most reasonable and legal
way to resolve this complexity.
Judge Murphy's Arguments:
The truth of this statement depends on the decision in the appeal of
CFJ 1594, which is still outstanding.