=============================== CFJ 3584 ===============================
Telnaior attempted to publish a Notice of Honour that was invalid
solely because she had already posted a valid Notice of Honour
within the current week.
Barred: V.J. Rada
Called by Telnaior: 22 Oct 2017 04:29:48
Assigned to o: 30 Oct 2017 00:57:32
Judged TRUE by o: 02 Nov 2017 02:19:10
Gratuitous Arguments by G:
Just a note, as Caller it's nice to provide, if not logical arguments,
a quick summary of events, e.g. "Telnaior attempted to publish one
notice of honour, but it only said 'notice of honour' in the Subject
line and not the message. If it succeeded anyway, the second attempt
Gratuitous Evidence by G.:
There was a lot of discussion of past precedents for subject lines:
I judge CFJ 3584 to be TRUE.
The issue at question here is whether Telnaior’s first attempt to issue
a Notice of Honour succeeded. The second attempt is obviously valid on
its face, and could only have failed if the first attempt succeeded
(thus locking em out of issuing any further Notices of Honour for the
remainder of the week), so if the first attempt succeeded, then this CFJ
The requirements for a Notice of Honour to succeed are, as given in rule
2510 (“Such is Karma”):
> For a Notice of Honour to be valid, it must: 1. Be clear that it is a
> Notice of Honour, and be the first valid Notice of Honour
> that player has published in the current week; 2. Specify any other
> player to gain karma, and provide a reason for specifying that
> player; and 3. Specify any player to lose karma, and provide a reason
> for specifying that player.
Telnaior’s first message, posted with the subject "BUS: Notice of
> Found it :D
> Alexis gains a Karma for being helpful, Gaelan loses a Karma for being
> slack on reporting (I think he's Rulekeepor?)
The text of the message, considered without the Subject: header, meets
every criterion clearly, save one: “It must be clear that it [the
message] is a Notice of Honour.” While the text of the message can only
be meaningfully interpreted as a Notice of Honour, the absence of
explicitness could concievably put the clarity of this message into
question. With the addition of the subject line, however, the message is
explicit and clear, and meets the criteria of a successful Notice of Honour.
The tests outlined in CFJ 3409 outline criteria under which an email
message’s subject line may be taken to be part of the message:
> 1. Are there multiple actions that can be inferred?
> 2. Is there a real doubt as to what is intended?
> 3. Is timing an issue? (multiple events in the message).
> 4. Is anything purposefully obfuscated?
> 5. Does the message text infer the type of action that can be made
> clear from the subject line?
Telnaior’s message quoted above contained only a single action which can
be inferred. There is no real doubt as to eir intent. Timing was not an
issue; Notices of Honour are not time-sensitive in any way. No part of
the message was purposfully obfuscated. Finally, the message text is
perfectly consistent with exactly and only the type of action in the
I find that Telnaior’s first Notice of Honour, above, succeeded, and
therefore that their second failed solely because e had previously
issued a notice of honour that week.