==============================  CFJ 3427  ==============================

      If G. publishes a formal apology that does not contain the words I
      attempted to prescribe above, this will suffice to let em cast
      votes other than PRESENT within the next 30 days.

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

Caller:                       ais523 

Judge:                        omd
Judgement:                    FALSE

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

History:

Called by ais523:             03 Aug 2014       
Assigned to Murphy:           04 Sep 2014
Murphy Recused:               02 Oct 2014
Assigned to omd:              02 Oct 2014
Judged FALSE by omd:          07 Oct 2014                  

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

Caller's Arguments:

"prescribed" appears in Rule 2427, in a context that makes it appear as
though it is a reference to another rule. However, the word does not
appear elsewhere in the ruleset, and in particular, the rule for
awarding Red Cards (2426) does not mention prescribed words at all.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

Does it matter that I deregistered during the time in question? 
If "inaction" is treated as no action, it doesn't matter (because
it would "suffice" for me not to deregister.  If "inaction" is
treated as the act of not acting, it does matter (because, as
proven by my actions, it's wasn't enough for me to apologize, I'd
also have to had refrained from deregistering).

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

Judge omd's Arguments:

> CALLER'S ARGUMENTS
> "prescribed" appears in Rule 2427, in a context that makes it appear as
> though it is a reference to another rule. However, the word does not
> appear elsewhere in the ruleset, and in particular, the rule for
> awarding Red Cards (2426) does not mention prescribed words at all.

When poorly defined terms or dangling references are used in the
rules, they may be ignored as nonsensical, but in the case that there
is exactly one overwhelmingly most reasonable referent, it is often
preferable to interpret them as referring to it.  There is a good
precedent on this, which I am somehow entirely unable to find - I
think woggle wrote it.  In any case, where the rule refers to
"prescribed words" in the context of a punishment semi-arbitrarily
imposed by the Referee, it seems fitting that the Referee should be
able to do the prescribing as part of the imposing.

> GRATUITOUS ARGUMENTS BY G.
> Does it matter that I deregistered during the time in question?
> If "inaction" is treated as no action, it doesn't matter (because
> it would "suffice" for me not to deregister.  If "inaction" is
> treated as the act of not acting, it does matter (because, as
> proven by my actions, it's wasn't enough for me to apologize, I'd
> also have to had refrained from deregistering).

It doesn't matter, because judgements are supposed to be (somewhat
garbledly) "based on the facts of the case at the statement at the
time the CFJ was initiated", and you hadn't deregistered when it was
called.  The statement is most reasonably interpreted as asking about
G. hypothetically performing an action soon after the CFJ is called,
without any random other things messing up the gamestate first, or
other special cases (such as the depressing fact that no proposals
were actually distributed from this case's initiation until very
shortly before 30 days afterward).

> STATEMENT
> If G. publishes a formal apology that does not contain the words I
> attempted to prescribe above, this will suffice to let em cast votes
> other than PRESENT within the next 30 days.

FALSE, e would need the prescribed words.

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