============================== CFJ 3344 ==============================
Michael Norrish CAN form a government by announcement.
Called by omd: 18 Jun 2013 01:18:35 GMT
Assigned to scshunt: 19 Jun 2013 02:47:23 GMT
Judged FALSE by scshunt: 21 Jun 2013 21:02:51 GMT
Rule 103 now states:
The Speaker is an imposed office and a figurehead of Agora. The
Speaker is a person who has proven themselves to be worthy of
the title, and for a time can direct Agoran government affairs.
At any time, each player shall be either a Voter or the Speaker; no
player may simultaneously be a Voter and a Speaker. At any time
there shall be exactly one Speaker. The term "player" in the rules
shall specifically include both the Voters and the Speaker.
At the time of enactment, the office was vacant, but the rule now
requires there to be "exactly one Speaker". Who is it? The statement
of this CFJ provides one possibility. More likely, I suppose, is that
the requirement is simply impossible and therefore nobody is the
Speaker despite it, but that gets to the issues raised in the paradox
Note that Rule 1006 (Offices) requires the holder of an office to be a
player, but Rule 103 takes precedence in case of a conflict.
Gratuitous Arguments by FSX:
Rule 103, if interpreted in modern Agoran terminology, to the best of
my understanding, does not mean that Michael Norrish could possibly
take hold of the office of Speaker, it means that he is and always has
been the Speaker and every other Speaker has been an impostor.
According to CFJ 2154, Michael Norrish was the speaker for the first
game in 1993 Agora terminology, which ended long ago. This means Rule
103, though part of the ruleset, no longer does anything. If CFJ 2154
is ignored, then the rule defining Michael Norrish as Speaker has
greater power than the rule defining the Speaker and so Michael
Norrish is the Speaker. In either case, this would probably be FALSE;
either Michael Norrish is incapable of forming a government or Michael
Norrish's government already exists and "forming a government" would
not make sense.
Judge scshunt's Arguments:
Time for a cop-out judgment. Based on arguments and past precedent,
especially Pavitra's excellent CFJ 2650, it appears that UNDECIDABLE
It also appears that we do have an ambiguity in the rules. However,
based on common sense, if there is a Speaker, that Speaker would be a
player (see Rule 217), and accordingly this is FALSE as Michael
Norrish is not a player.
Moreover, Rule 104 is entirely spent, per the provisions of Rule 1023,
and should not influence the result at all.