============================== CFJ 2060 ==============================
The CotC MAY NOT refuse cases based on cases being excess as defined
by Rule 2175
Called by Sgeo: 02 Jul 2008 17:49:22 GMT
Assigned to G.: 04 Jul 2008 06:44:37 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.: 04 Jul 2008 18:12:01 GMT
Rule 101(iii) gives all persons the "right to initiate a formal
process to resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable
expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved."
In the event that a person already initiated 5 CFJs during the Agoran
week, if the person calls another CFJ to resolve a matter of
controversy, and the CotC refuses the case, the person's reasonable
expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved is violated.
Gratuitous Arguments by root:
CFJs 1738 and 1768 established related
precedents that may be of use to the judge.
Gratuitous Arguments by woggle:
The statement is definitely too strong as disallowing some CFJs (e.g.
nonsense CFJs, duplicate CFJs) likely do not implicate the R101(iii)
right as either no actual matter of controversy is involved or there
already existed a reasonable expectation that the controversy would be
resolved through a formal process (and there the CotC rejection can be
considered to serve as a formal recognition of that).
It may be the CotC is prevented from excersizing in eir discrestion to
decline excess CFJs in the extraordinarily unlikely and
near-impossible to demonstrate situation where a person would
apparently need to initiate more than an average of more than 5 CFJs
per Agoran week for some non-trivial period of time (being forced to
wait a week or two or three probably does not infringe or
substantially abridge the right, at least so long as no statute of
limitations is implicated) to address actual matters of controversy.
This is doubly hard to do as, per game custom, the reasoning in a
judgement of a CFJ can be reasonably expected to also resolve similar
controversies. So, a person would need to have 5 substantially
different controversies to resolve per week, and that after all
reasonable tricks for combining them into less CFJs.
Judge G.'s Arguments:
[arguments edited at 18:55:29 UTC, appending a sentence to first paragraph]
The Right in question, as defined in R101(iii), is a right to a "reasonable
expectation" of a resolution. The resolution need not (and in fact can not)
be immediate to occur in a reasonable fashion. The imposed delay for
ensuring a CFJ is "non-excess" may be as little as a few minutes, (though it
could be up to a week). This is shorter than the various ASAP requirements
for the CotC and the Judge that are a necessary components of any formal
system we could create. Also, the "formal process" in R101(iii) need not be
tied to a single CFJ. Submitting a CFJ, having it procedurally rejected
without prejudice, and having to re-submit with a short delay, is within
the bounds of reasonableness to be considered a single "formal process" for
resolving a matter of controversy, and not the termination of one process
without expectation of resolution and the beginning of another, even if the
process as a whole requires the caller to perform a straightforward and
permissible follow-up action of re-submission to see the matter through.
Finally, the CotC can act as a safeguard by not refusing CFJs if the need for
more rapid resolution is evident. In fact, excess dismissal in itself is a
safeguard, not a limit, to the right: if a CotC was not able to dismiss
excess, a "denial of service" flood of CFJs (as has been done more than once
before) would in fact abridge the rights of others seeking legitimate dispute
resolution in reasonable time.
Therefore, this court finds FALSE; a player's defined right would only be
abridged if there was a specific (case-by-case) instance in which the CotC's
dismissal would substantially prevent the matter from being resolved at all,
would create a substantially altered resolution (e.g. would prevent it from
halting a relevant self-ratification as per R2201(a)), or would delay it far
beyond the standard ASAP lags inherent in the process. That is, the mere
fact a delay is incurred which averages 3-4 days, is at most 7, and may
require the caller to re-submit, does not abridge, reduce, limit, or remove
the "reasonable expectation" of resolution.