Index ← 2637 CFJ 2638 2639 → text
==============================  CFJ 2638  ==============================

    BobTHJ's voting limit on proposal 6413 is 2.


Caller:                                 BobTHJ

Judge:                                  Quazie

Judge:                                  Murphy
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by BobTHJ:                       23 Jul 2009 03:24:48 GMT
Assigned to Quazie:                     24 Jul 2009 21:44:23 GMT
Quazie recused:                         02 Aug 2009 16:17:27 GMT
Assigned to Murphy:                     02 Aug 2009 16:21:56 GMT
Judged FALSE by Murphy:                 08 Aug 2009 16:29:12 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

Since the Roll Call card does not specify the amount that
my voting limit is increased my voting limit can not be determined.
Therefore I argue for a judgment of UNDECIDABLE.


Caller's Evidence:

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 19:04, Sean Hunt wrote:
> 6410 D 0 2.0 coppro
> 6411 D 1 2.0 Yally               Terms and Vacancies 2.0
> 6412 O 1 1.0 allispaul           A Standard Standard
> 6413 O 1 1.0 c-walker            Office IIs with Agoran Consent

I play Roll Call to increase my voting limit on proposal 6413. Since
the amount of increase is not specified, I determine that it increases
my voting limit by 10,000.

This is a win announcement. BobTHJ's voting limit on proposal 6413
exceeds the combined voting limits of all other players and e wins by


Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

To play a card, a player must announce the play "while also announcing
any further information required by the exploit." (R2256)

Although the exploit text doesn't *say* it requires a value for the
increase, in actual fact, a value is required implicitly in order to
interpret the result of the play.  BobTHJ specified a value forbidden
by R2222 (too high) so the play simply failed because e didn't specify
a legitimate required value.

(In other words, while the value isn't required by the text of the
exploit, it's required for the result of the exploit to take effect,
so it's "required by the exploit" generally).


Gratuitous Arguments by Wooble:

UNDECIDABLE is an inappropriate judgment; the
amount of increase isn't specified by the rule, but it's neither
logically undecidable nor incapable of being described as either true
or false.  BobTHJ's voting limit on the decision either is or is not
2, and the trial judge has the discretion to determine whether the
game custom of such increases increasing the limit by 1 applies, or if
the player of the card can specify any limit whatsoever (although in
this case R2222 clearly takes precedence and it is IMPOSSIBLE for the
specified increase to take effect.)

IMO, the CFJ is either TRUE or FALSE, and if a judgment of FALSE is
given I recommend the judge specify whether BobTHJ's voting limit is 1
or 12, which IMO are the only possible values under FALSE.


Judge Murphy's Arguments:

See judge's arguments for CFJ 2640.