============================== CFJ 2090 ==============================
CFJ 2019 is a valid CFJ.
Called by Quazie: 16 Jul 2008 22:46:35 GMT
Assigned to ais523: 19 Jul 2008 00:35:29 GMT
Judged TRUE by ais523: 21 Jul 2008 15:11:28 GMT
Appealed by root: 22 Jul 2008 20:01:05 GMT
Appealed by Zefram: 22 Jul 2008 20:21:26 GMT
Appealed by Taral: 22 Jul 2008 23:54:22 GMT
Appeal 2090a: 22 Jul 2008 23:54:22 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal: 08 Aug 2008 16:06:54 GMT
Assigned to ais523: 08 Aug 2008 16:06:54 GMT
Judged TRUE by ais523: 11 Aug 2008 20:43:09 GMT
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Geoffrey Spear
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Quazie wrote:
>>>> The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the
>>>> case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one
>>>> person from assignment as judge of the case. If the initiator is
>>>> a partnership, all members of that partnership are unqualified
>>>> to be assigned as judge of the case.
>>> Partnerships can't initiate inquiry cases.
>> Rule 591 is only power 1.7; partnerships have an R101 right to initiate
> We discussed this ages ago; my recollection is we determined their
> R101 right was preserved by the ability of members of their bases to
> initiate cases for them.
Judge ais523's Arguments:
Although it is not possible for a partnership to file a CFJ directly (it
can file a partnership via the members of its basis instead), that only
means that CFJ 2019 was not filed by Human Point Two. As CFJ 2019 was an
inquiry case, it was entirely within Murphy's power to create such a CFJ
emself; therefore, I rule that CFJ 2019 was accidentally created by
Murphy when e assigned it to someone (and was incorrect about its
caller), in much the same way that the distributor can create a proposal
by mistake in the act of distribution. Therefore, TRUE, but the CotC's
report should be amended to list the CFJ's actual caller.
Appellant root's Arguments:
I intend to appeal this judgement with two support. R591 is clear
that an inquiry case is initiated through a public announcement by a
first-class player that e initiates the case. Nowhere in Murphy's
assignment of CFJ 2019 did e make any such announcement.
The analogy to proposals is specious. Proposals are documents that
are created by the act of writing them, not by the act of submitting
them; this is how the distributor can create new proposals
accidentally. Inquiry cases, in contrast, are purely legal fictions.
Appellant Zefram's Arguments:
I support. The rules are clear about what creates a CFJ.
Judge ais523's Arguments:
First, the instructions from the appeal board are somewhat hard to
follow; Quazie's and Zefram's arguments hardly qualify as "recent"
because the appeal process has taken so long. It took me a while to
locate the arguments in question, so I repeat them here for convenience.
> I do not support. BUT if there is an appeal of this case I urge the
> panel to look into whether R591 can indeed prevent a partnership from
> submitting a CFJ and also look at CFJ 2050 and how/if it applies to
> this situation. If player A submits a CFJ on behalf of player B, then
> player A actually submitted the CFJ. Logically applied here CFJ2019
> was not submitteb by h.2 but instead by Quazie.
> I intend to appeal this judgement with two support. R591 is clear
> that an inquiry case is initiated through a public announcement by a
> first-class player that e initiates the case. Nowhere in Murphy's
> assignment of CFJ 2019 did e make any such announcement.
> I support. The rules are clear about what creates a CFJ.
Rule 591 says:
An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any first-class person, by
announcement which includes the statement to be inquired into.
Rule 478 says:
Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
announcement", a person performs that action by announcing that e
In that case, it is indeed impossible to create an inquiry case without
a player stating that they create an inquiry case (or synonyms to that
effect), so Murphy indeed could not create a CFJ by mistake because e
did not explicitly say e was creating the initial CFJ (this differs from
my original ruling). Human Point Two obviously also did not create the
CFJ, not being first-class. So the remaining argument to look into is
Quazie's. Luckily, there is precedent on this matter; CFJ 2050 holds
that CFJ 2050 was filed by me not by tusho (I submitted the CFJ on
behalf of em, but it was found in that CFJ that I submitted it and not
tusho (note for the CotC: your database is wrong with respect to the
caller of 2050)). Therefore, I find TRUE, and that CFJ 2019 was
submitted by Quazie under the precedent of CFJ 2050 (and would have been
submitted by Quazie even if e had tried to submit it on behalf of a