============================== CFJ 2450 ==============================
The Scorekeepor SHALL award me 6N points as defined by Rule 2234 in
relation to Enigma.
Called by omd: 17 Apr 2009 12:18:52 GMT
Assigned to ais523: 19 Apr 2009 00:31:16 GMT
Judged TRUE by ais523: 25 Apr 2009 17:52:57 GMT
Whether or not "MAY once announce" implies "MAY NOT thereafter
announce", I am not the contestmaster of Enigma and the paragraph and
its restrictions do not apply to me. However, if you read it
carefully, "such an announcement" is clearly simply an announcement
"that e performed duties related to that contest in a timely manner
during that month". I made such an announcement, so the second
paragraph _does_ apply.
Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
Part of the referent of "such an announcement" in this case is the
identity of the announcer, so FALSE.
Even if the contestmaster of Enigma had done this, another part of the
referent of "such an announcement" in this case is that the announcement
was performed within the stated once-a-month limit.
Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
Murphy seems to be arguing that by "announcement" the rule really
means "the action described in the previous paragraph, which is a
special case of an announcement", but this goes against the wording of
the rule. It explicitly states "a player makes such an announcement",
not "that player makes such an announcement" or "such an announcement
is made", which would be more natural wordings in context. Indeed, it
seems to me the rule intends that players can make false such
announcements (though perhaps not multiple times...) but they're
ILLEGAL due to truthfulness.
(Note, however, that if this interpretation is upheld, the R2125 NoV
is incorrect as I *certainly* did not perform the action.)
Gratuitous Arguments by Tiger:
It seems there are two interpretations:
One is that "such an announcement" means only the announcement stating
that duties have been performed, and in that case everything else
about it is conditions that weren't met, so it is illegal due to 2125.
The other one is that the action is "the contestmaster making an
announcement" in its entirety, in which case it fails because comex
It seems to me that if we define conditions as not being everything
about the sentence, but rather only the "ASAP at the end of the month"
(which I understand that we maybe want to), then this should also
apply to the "such an announcement" clause.
Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
Third interpretation: "such an announcement" is just a hypothetical
announcement stating X (not referring to any particular action yet);
the action is the contestmaster making such an announcement, with the
time limit as condition.
Gratuitous Arguments by Tiger:
No, wait, I didn't read what comex said right there. I'm arguing the
same as Murphy, and comex's objection applies to that too. However, I
think that "such an announcement" can also be seen as "the kind of
announcement we spent the entire last paragraph to describe", which is
one made once, ASAP at the end of the month, by the contestmaster. So
maybe the defenition of what's a condition and what's an action used
with regards to R2125 doesn't have to be the same as the one used
regarding the "such an announcement".
Judge ais523's Arguments:
First, the arguments in CFJ 2451 suggest an obvious solution to this. It
ruled that comex did indeed make such an announcement, suggesting TRUE.
However, it left slightly unresolved the number of actions in question,
and CFJs can be appealed, so I want to consider the arguments
surrounding this case myself as well.
First, the rule in question (2234) says MAY once announce; therefore,
such an announcement, if made by the contestmaster and only once, does
not violate rule 2234. It is worth noting that if a rule says that a
player MAY do something under certain conditions, then doing it under
other conditions, unless some other rule specifically permits it,
violates rule 2125 rather than the rule in question. (It's rule 2125
which says that an action MAY NOT be performed if a rule says that it
MAY be performed under certain conditions, unless "allowed by the
rules"; for sanity's sake, it's best to consider a statement by a rule
that a player MAY do something as "allowing" it, otherwise more or less
every action in Agora is illegal. Luckily, this issue is only mildly
related to this case; it may be worth calling another CFJ to explore it
in more details.)
Rule 2234 does not put any restrictions on what a player CAN announce.
Rule 478 ("it is hereby resolved that no Player shall be prohibited from
participating in the Fora.") makes it pretty clear that a player CAN
announce things (not just in general, but as a pretty strong right; the
precedent of CFJ 1738 implies that it is in fact even stronger than
this, extending into implications (a rule allowing a player to only make
false statements, for instance, conflicts with and is prevented from
acting by rule 478)). This CFJ is about the CAN, not the MAY, and I
think it's pretty well established that comex's announcements were
POSSIBLE. The "subject to other rules concerning truthfulness" likewise
only affects MAY, not CAN; and unless a rule explicitly suggests that
something is possible only if legal, legality and possibility are
The remaining question, then, is whether they constitute "such an
announcement" for the purposes of rule 2234. The problem is that the
whole first paragraph of the rule is more or less redundant. It states
that a player MAY do something, and they certainly CAN do that. So when
do they do it? As Taral's ruling says, we need to identify what part of
the first paragraph defines the action, and what part specifies the
conditions under which it's legal. In general, formalised by rule 2125
but common sense anyway, the purpose specifying that one player MAY do
something which would otherwise be legal is to point out that other
players MAY NOT. There's an implication there, in other words, that the
player CAN do the action; we've already established that a player CAN
announce what they like, but this is a different matter of establishing
that a player CAN illegally perform the action in the first paragaph of
rule 2125. Just as Taral ruled, therefore, it seems that it is indeed
possible to "do the action in the first paragraph of rule 2234", and
comex isn't missing any of the information required. (The announcement
was a complete lie, but was "such an announcement".)
So the remaining question is as to whether all 6 of comex's
announcements counted, or just one of them. The "MAY once" phrasing is
pretty clear; the words are right next to each other, and if the "once"
isn't directly bound to the MAY, it's hard to see how anything is. In
other words, the first paragraph implies that it's illegal for a
contestmaster to multi-announce, not that multi-announcing somehow makes
the future announcements a different sort of announcement. Therefore,
all 6 of comex's announcements were in fact the sort of announcement
required by rule 2234, and despite their illegality, they were