============================== CFJ 3497 ==============================
The rules forbid a player named 'no Player' from taking any action
that requires posting to a public forum.
Called by o: 18 May 2017
Assigned to Aris: 19 May 2017
Judged FALSE by Aris: 01 Jun 2017
Rule 478/33 (Power=3)
Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of
any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player
shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora, nor shall
any person create physical or technological obstacles that
unduly favor some players' fora access over others.
Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and
Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar. Changes to
publicity are secured.
The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without
objection as long as:
(a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and
(b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which
the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all
existing public fora.
Each player should ensure e can receive messages via each public
A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent
to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to
be public. A rule can also designate that a part of one public
message is considered a public message in its own right. A
person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public
Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously
and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at
the time date-stamped on that message. Actions in messages
(including sub-messages) are performed in the order they appear
in the message, unless otherwise specified.
I was considering playing along with this, but frankly, given
everything that's happened, I'm not in the mood. Even the caller has
practically admitted that this CFJ is frivolous (the message was
entitled "A little levity"). The only sensible reading of the rule is
that "no Player shall be prohibited" means roughly "a player shall not
be prohibited". This is so abundantly clear it isn't even worth
talking about (see also common sense, affixed). Further, no evidence
has been provided that a player named "no player" even existed at the
time of the addition of that rule. Under the precedent set by CFJ
1520, the existence of such a player would be required for the
reference to be complete.
I judge this case FALSE. Additionally, for the initiation of a frivolous
case, I (unofficially) sentence o to Shame. I realize we have a
tradition of having such cases on occasion, but given the current
judicial overload I think this is in bad taste at the moment.