Index ← 2321a CFJ 2321 2322 → text
==============================  CFJ 2321  ==============================

    Rule 9842 exists.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 G.

Judge:                                  Wooble
Judgement:                              FALSE

Appeal:                                 2321a
Decision:                               REASSIGN


Judge:                                  woggle
Judgement:                              FALSE

========================================================================

History:

Called by G.:                           24 Dec 2008 00:00:59 GMT
Assigned to Wooble:                     06 Jan 2009 05:39:54 GMT
Judged FALSE by Wooble:                 07 Jan 2009 23:59:19 GMT
Appealed by omd:                        08 Jan 2009 02:49:18 GMT
Appealed by Taral:                      08 Jan 2009 02:54:51 GMT
Appealed by woggle:                     08 Jan 2009 04:46:02 GMT
Appealed by G.:                         08 Jan 2009 05:06:00 GMT
Appeal 2321a:                           08 Jan 2009 05:06:00 GMT
REASSIGNED on Appeal:                   15 Jan 2009 17:29:45 GMT
Assigned to woggle:                     19 Jan 2009 09:24:35 GMT
Judged FALSE by woggle:                 23 Jan 2009 05:19:20 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

R1769 reads in part:
      If some Rule requires that an action be done prior to a given
      time, and that given time falls during a Holiday, or within the
      72-hour period immediately following that Holiday, then that
      action need not be done until 72 hours after that Holiday ends.

Rule 1728 reads in part:
       b) A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the
          action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and
          method(s) (including the value of N for each method), at
          most fourteen days earlier, and (if the action depends on
          objections) at least four days earlier.

Now, "earlier" and "prior" are pretty clearly synonyms.  Therefore,
R1728 specifies that Intent to perform an action must be posted
prior to the given time of the performance of the action.  Therefore,
the "given time" is the time an action is actually performed, and the
action whose time limit is extended is the action of posting intent.

Therefore, any w/o Objection action CAN be performed during a holiday,
and it will be successful provided the actor posts intent to perform
the action within 72 hours after the holiday ends!

On the case in question, Goethe (argues that e) ratified the SLR
(without Objection) during a holiday to contain Rule 9842, and
immediately thereafter posted intent to so ratify.

========================================================================

Judge Wooble's Arguments:

R1728 requires that the notice of intent be
posted during an event comprising the time between 4 and 14 days
before the action without objection is itself announced.  In this
case, the time the intent was required to be published fell several
days before the holiday began; the Holidays rule thus does not affect
the timing as it only applies to events that are required to occur
during the Holiday.

========================================================================

Appellant omd's Arguments:

This deserves a REASSIGN under the corruptive self-interest clause.

========================================================================

Appellant G.'s Arguments:

I support, with the recommendation of reassign due to the sheer cursory nature
of the rejection which failed to address any of the points whatsoever, and
having received the necessary support, thus initiate the appeal.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

ugh.  I'm now so convinced my scam didn't work I can't quite stand to
not post the argument and see wrong ones.  Sorry if this spoils some
fun, here's the argument, any refutations?

The section of the Holiday rule in question is only triggered if a
Rule "requires" something be done by a certain time limit.

If a Rule says "you must do X before you CAN do Y", but you are not
actually required to do Y, then doing X is not a requirement at all,
even if the sequence is time-muddled.

To see why, take the simple phrase "you must get a coin before you
can spend it."  That doesn't mean getting a coin is a "requirement"
otherwise I could just spend 1,000,000 coins and claim "I have until
after the holiday to obtain them."  Or take the following reducio-ad-
absurdum :

"Before Goethe can win by Zotting, e is required to change the
Rules so that e can win by Zotting."  This is trivially true, but
it doesn't mean I could legally win by zotting (and have the win
count) then later say, "oops, I broke a rule by not changing the
Rules so I could win by zotting, but I still won".

All this (and the intent-dependent action sequence) is messing with
the order of "game physics", which is not what the Holiday rule speaks
of for "requires": "requires" should be restricted to dealing with
"SHALL before X" and not the time-reversal of "CAN after doing X."

========================================================================

Judge woggle's Arguments:

> Rule 1728 reads in part:
[inserting a fuller quote here]
      A person (the performer) CAN perform an action dependently (a
      dependent action) by announcement if and only if all of the
      following are true:
[...]
>       b) A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the
>          action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and
>          method(s) (including the value of N for each method), at
>          most fourteen days earlier, and (if the action depends on
>          objections) at least four days earlier
[snip]
Although the condition in R1728(b) is a necessary condition for
performing a dependent action, being a necessary condition for
something else to be done is not the same thing as being required to
"be done". In this case, clearly no one was obliged to perform the
dependent action in question, so no one was indirectly obliged to post
a notice of intent either.

Even if Goethe were so obliged, the "given time" that would been
required and therefore extended by the Holiday rule was "at least four
days prior", which did not fall during a Holiday or the 72-hour period
immediately following.

========================================================================