Index ← 3418 CFJ 3419 3420 → text
==============================  CFJ 3419  ==============================

    If Rule 1789 were repealed, the obligation on the Registrar to note
    the method of deregistration of players deregistered by Writ of FAGE
    would remain.


Caller:     scshunt
Judge:      Tiger
Judgement:  FALSE


Called by scshunt:                                  19 Jun 2014 23:59:36
Assigned to Henri:                                  30 Jun 2014 13:44:22
Henri recused:                                      25 Jul 2014
Assigned to Tiger:                                  25 Jul 2014
Judged FALSE by Tiger:                              27 Jul 2014


Exhibit by scshunt:

The wording of the rule implies that the rule instantaneously creates an
ongoing obligation, rather than continuously creating an instantaneous
obligation. Can such an obligation persist beyond the rule's expiry?


Exhibit by Ørjan:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2014, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> CFJ 3419 (scshunt): "If Rule 1789 were repealed, the obligation on the
> Registrar to note the method of deregistration of players deregistered
> by Writ of FAGE would remain."
> is hereby assigned to Henri.
And I'd have thought that would go to Murphy again?


Judge's Arguments:

The second paragraph creates an obligation to note the method of
deregistration in subsequent Registrar Reports. If the third paragraph
had not been present, it is obvious to me that the general assumption
that only current rules regulate play. Thus, if the rule were to be
repealed (in the case of no third paragraph, that is), it would have
no power over subsequent Registrar Repots. Compare with a rule that
says "every player who registered after [date] must [obligation]", a
sort of grandfather clause. Repealing such a rule removes the
requirement to [obligation] – the alternative would be that the rules
have to state that "players need not do x" for every obligation that
has ever been present in the rules, which is absurd.

The third paragraph might be read as challenging this, with even more
words spend on emphasising the temporal reach of the rule. Compared to
ordinary rules which only say "X is the case", this rule states both
that "X shall be the case for all subsequent reports" and "henceforth,
X will be the case". (The word "will" is not rules-defined.) Surely,
this means the rule has greater power to affect the future?

No. My judgment is still no. Once repealed, a rule does not regulate
play. What would otherwise be the point of repealing rules? Several
rules state that certain information is part of the Registrar's
various reports. If Rule 1789 were repealed, it would no longer be
counted among them.

I judge CFJ 3419 FALSE.

As for the caller's secondary question, more generally: "Can such an
obligation persist beyond the rule's expiry?" I have a hard time
seeing how this would come to pass.


Judge's Evidence:

Rule 1789/9 (Power=2)
Cantus Cygneus

      Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously
      by the Agoran community that e can no longer abide to be a part
      of it, e may submit a document to the Registrar, clearly labeled
      a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and expressing eir
      reproach for those who e feels have treated em so badly.

      In a timely fashion after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the
      Registrar shall publish this document along with a Writ of
      Fugiendae Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the
      Player to be deregistered. The Registrar shall note the method
      of deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar

      The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and
      the notation in the Registrar's Report will ensure that,
      henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of