=============================== CFJ 3563 ===============================
The Green card o. issued emself in the below message was illegally
issued, as the green card e issued nichdel was legally issued.
Caller: V.J. Rada
Barred: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Called by V.J. Rada: 23 Sep 2017 06:47:59
Assigned to Gaelan: 27 Sep 2017 23:37:49
Gaelan Recused: 13 Oct 2017 20:33:15
Assigned to G.: 13 Oct 2017 20:33:15
Judged FALSE by G.: 21 Oct 2017 22:59:42
I think the most natural reading of "that reason" is the act itself,
not the particular rule breached. That is, someone can be carded twice
for breaking the same pledge on two totally seperate occasions. There
is also a question as to the interpretation of the pledge rule itself.
It says "a pledge is considered broken if...", which may mean that the
pledge is permanently broken, and cannot be broken more than once.
Judge G.'s Arguments
First, this judgement relies on Rule 2450/2, whose text was wholly
replaced by Proposal 7901, so this judgement is not relevant to the
current rules. The rule read:
A player SHALL NOT break eir own publicly-made pledges.
A pledge may be considered broken if the pledger does not complete
it in a timely manner after it becomes possible to do so. A pledge
may be considered broken at the moment the pledger engages in
conduct proscribed by that pledge.
In particular, notice "A pledge may be considered broken at the moment the
pledger engages in conduct proscribed by that pledge."
By common language, once something is broken, it remains broken until
fixed. Since there is nothing in the Rules that allows for "fixing" a
pledge, further actions that would break the pledge "a second time"
don't break it, in general, because it's already broken.
This is backed up by the wording of the pledge:
> > >> I pledge to not acknowledge any messages Cuddle Beam sends to a-d,
> > >> or to respond in a-d to anything CB does.
The answer to whether e had acknowledged "any" messages was "no" before
the first message, and "yes" afterwards. For the second
acknowledgement, the answer was "yes" both before and after, so the
truth value of whether the forbidden activity had happened did not
So before nichdel acknowledged CuddleBeam the first time, the pledge
wasn't broken. After e did, it was broken. Compare this to the second
time. Immediately *before* e acknowledged CuddleBeam, the pledge was
broken. Afterwards, the pledge was broken. The status of the pledge had
not changed, so the player did not actually *break* the pledge a second
It may have been possible (again, under the old rules) to word a pledge
explicitly such that it "fixed itself" after being broken so it could be
broken again. But it would have to be explicit, at the very least (and
even then it might not have worked). But in this case, it's clearly a
According to the logic of Carding that resulted in this case, my
arguments require a judgement of FALSE with respect to the legality of
the cards awarded (see Caller's Addendum, below). So I judge FALSE.
> Under the card rules at the time, you had to issue a card for every
> finger point, even if it were SHENANIGANS. O here found that my point
> against nichdel was SHENANIGANS but had to card em anyway. E then
> carded emself because e believed eir card against nichdel was illegal.
> I contend that the card against nichdel was LEGAL because under the
> rules at the time you COULD break a pledge twice, making the card o
> issued EMSELF illegal.