============================== CFJ 1620 ==============================
The following statement from the judgment of CFJ 1589 is true 'All
players that were inactive when 4866 was adopted are considered
inactive for any such rule until they next participate in Agora,
from which point they should be considered active.'
Called by Quazie: 06 Feb 2007 16:59:39 GMT
Assigned to Zefram: 21 Feb 2007 18:10:52 GMT
Judged FALSE by Zefram: 22 Feb 2007 12:09:13 GMT
Linked to CFJ 1618
Judge Zefram's Arguments:
In the matter of CFJs 1618, 1619, and 1620:
As the ruleset does not supply a definition of "active" or "inactive",
and neither law nor mathematics provides an applicable definition,
I find that the ordinary English meaning of the words applies.
Most uses of "active" in the ruleset refer to "active player", which
under usual English grammar must be interpreted as meaning a player who
is actively playing. Merely being a player does not constitute active
play; one must engage in actions that are of significance to the rules,
such as voting, publishing official reports, or participating in the
judicial process. Passive behaviour that is significant to the rules,
such as doing nothing to allow a time limit to expire, is not active play.
I find that a player need not be presently peforming any of these actions
in order to be an "active player"; any recent activity, or especially
a pattern of activity, qualifies one as an "active player".
Rule 1826 and the statement of CFJ 1618 refer to a person being "active"
without using the phrase "active player". This could be interpreted as
referring to a wider standard of activity. An active player (as defined
above) is definitely "active" in the context of the game. A non-player
who engages in game-relevant actions, such as calling CFJs, is also
"active". I leave open the question of whether game-unrelated activity
can also qualify one as "active", because it does not affect these CFJs.
When proposal 4866 was adopted, the ruleset ceased to define the term
"active". I find that, therefore, it is at this instant that the ordinary
English meaning of the word commenced to prevail. There is no legal basis
for GreyKnight's assertion that some mixture of the English meaning and
the repealed definition applies. I therefore judge CFJ 1620 FALSE.