Index ← 2410 CFJ 2411 2412 → text
==============================  CFJ 2411  ==============================

    If a rule requires a player to perform an action without making it
    possible for em to do so, and there is a rule forbidding em from
    doing so, e can take no action that is not in violation of a rule.

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

Caller:                                 scshunt

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by scshunt:                      13 Mar 2009 05:03:12 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         13 Mar 2009 17:06:52 GMT
Judged TRUE by G.:                      13 Mar 2009 17:18:41 GMT

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

Gratuitous Arguments by scshunt:

Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Since it seems
>> unreasonable to add an obligation retroactively due to changing
>> circumstances, it seems equally unreasonable to remove one.
>>
>> I judge case 2403 to be TRUE.
>
> I'm not sure about this one at all.  For example, let's say I'm required
> to award a player something that only applies to players, but e deregisters
> first (before the time limit even).  Does that mean I'm still obligated to
> do so?
>
> -G.

I personally think no. The difference between the two is that in the
2403, if the obligation exists, then it is possible to fulfill by virtue
of "CAN and SHALL", regardless of external circumstances (specifically,
whether or not Wooble is presently a contestmaster), whereas in your
example the action is illegal regardless of the obligation's existence.

However, it is important to note that in the case of an obligation due
to contract, the impossibility of performance does not remove the
obligation. This may very well be the case. However, it may also be the
case that the precedence of rules cause the obligation not to apply.

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

Judge G.'s Arguments:

TRUE.  This is known to be true and happens on occasion.  It's the
reason why, in criminal cases (R1504/35), the accused is only considered
GUILTY if among other things:

       (e) the Accused could have reasonably avoided committing the
           breach without committing a different breach of equal or
           greater severity.

(this used to be known as EXCUSED; i.e. you're EXCUSED from punishment
if the rules said you were dammed if you did and dammed if you didn't).

So in such a case, a player would satisfy R1504(a) if e committed
(or failed to commit) an act and thus breached a rule, but be excused
from GUILTY by R1504(e).

However, this isn't true for breaking contracts (Equity Cases); if
you put yourself in the position where one contract forbids you from
doing something that another contract (or even the rules) require you
to do, that's your own fault and you may be held liable; from R1742/17:

      Parties to a contract SHALL act in accordance with that
      contract.  This obligation is not impaired by contradiction
      between the contract and any other contract, or between the
      contract and the rules.

(Note that since this is still a clause in a rule, you might still
avoid criminal prosecution due to being EXCUSED if you have conflicting
contracts, but you wouldn't avoid an unfavorable equity settlement
which could spawn a criminal noncompliance of its own.  Not that
this has been tested per se...)

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