ais523 wrote: > On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 16:55 -0400, ihope wrote: >> Since I just published a Cantus Cygneus, I am to be awarded Left in a Huff. > I award Ivan Hope CXXVII the Patent Title of Left in a Huff. > I CFJ on the statement: "Ivan Hope CXXVII has the Patent Title of Left > in a Huff." > > Arguments: The only reason I can see that my award of the Patent Title > in question failing is that I am not authorized to award it; I am the > Registrar, and the CotC did not "get around to it first", so the only > reason I would not be authorized is that Ivan Hope CXXVII did not > publish a Cantus Cygneus. E definitely published /something/; whether it > was a Cantus Cygenus is up to the courts to decide. > > I won't attach the message in question as evidence, just in case I end > up getting Left in a Huff too; instead, I submit the following URL as > evidence: > <http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-October/014528.html>.
Gratuituous arguments: A typical example of "this is labeled as X, therefore, this is X", which has plagued Agora for a long time. Rule 1789, paragraph 1, does not explicitly define "Cantus Cygneus". In particular, it does not state that "a document [submitted] to the Clerk of the Courts, clearly labeled a Cantus Cygneus" is the whole of the definition, but implies that "detailing eir grievances and expressing eir reproach for those who e feels have treated em so badly" is also part of the definition. Incidentally, a similar argument applies to Rule 1789, paragraph 2, which implicitly defines "Writ of FAGE" (this is important because Ivan Hope is not deregistered until/unless the CotC acts as described in this paragraph). This standard may be looser because much of the prescribed content can be incorporated by reference, e.g. "This is a Writ of FAGE for <player>".
