Index ← 3522 CFJ 3523 3524 → text
==============================  CFJ 3523  ==============================

      V.J Rada barred ais523 from being assigned as judge of the above-
      quoted CFJ.


Caller:                       Murphy

Judge:                        Sprocklem

Judge:                        Aris

Judgement:                    TRUE 



Called by Murphy:             08 Jun 2017
Assigned to Sprocklem:        09 Jun 2017
Sprocklem Recused:            28 Jun 2017
Assigned to Aris:             28 Jun 2017
Judged TRUE by Aris:          04 Jul 2017


Caller's Arguments:

                    "TTttPF" (This Time to the Public Forum) is
generally accepted as equivalent to "I perform the actions that I
previously attempted to perform in the quoted message". Different
wording here, though the intent still seems clear enough.


Caller's Evidence:
(V.J. Rada's message)

From:      V.J Rada 
Date:      Thu, 8 Jun 2017 14:00:47 +1000

i sent this to the wrong place

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:59 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
      I additionally bar ais523 from judgement of this case.

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:45 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
      ========Call for Judgement========The Tailor's recent statement in the
      preamble of his June 6 report that "the well-known "disputed" mark in
      reports has... no legal effect." was legally correct


Judge Aris's Arguments:

As the caller argues, "TTttPF" (this time to the Public Forum) has a very
specific meaning and effect. It causes the actions that would have been taken
had the quoted message been originally sent to the public forum to be taken.
Despite being defined by no rule, game custom makes its meaning clear to all
players. The question here is whether other, less established forms may have
similar effect. "TTttPF" is a creature entirely of convention. It has effect
because all players understand what it means. The message here could not,
in context, be reasonably misunderstood. I therefore rule that it has effect,
but only in this particular instance. There are other cases where the phrasing
could be misunderstood. For example, what if the player took other actions
in the new message? Then the meaning could be "this action didn't work, and
I've changed my mind and am doing other actions". Unlikely, but possible. I thus
rule that the established phrasing should be preferred for its lack of
ambiguity, and this case's phrasing succeeded because, in context, it lacked
any other reasonable interpretation.

However, there is another issue for me to consider. Is it possible to bar
someone after calling the case, in another message? I turn first to the text of
the rule. Rule 991 (Calls for Judgement) states "Any person (the initiator) can
initiate a Call for Judgement (CFJ, syn. Judicial Case) by announcement,
specifying a statement to be inquired into. E may optionally bar one person
from the case." Nothing in that rule says that the barring has to be in the same
message. If the rule implies that conclusion, it certainly doesn't do so very
noticeably. No precedent on this has been presented, so I will now consider the
interests of the game (it's rather hard to have a negative game custom, so
I'm ignoring that). Under our current rules, a person may initiate up to 5
CFJs per week. That's a pretty high limit, so the main effect prohibiting
post-call barring would have would be to create more paperwork, as people could
just re-call the case. In accordance with my interpretation of the rule text
and the best interests of the game, I rule TRUE.