It would mean that the door can never be slammed on a player, so the case would be FALSE, not TRUE. I agree with everything up until the last paragraph of your judgement.
-Aris On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 6:15 PM ATMunn <[email protected]> wrote: > I guess I sort of see what you mean, but I don't see how that makes my > judgement wrong. > > On 11/27/2017 8:37 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > I intend, with 2 support, to file a motion to reconsider this > > judgement. It fails to consider the fact that all players are persons > > under Rule 869, which states that "A registered person is a Player". > > This provides very strong evidence that the rule should be interpreted > > "a player or (a person who...)", not "(a player or a person who..)", > > because the later reading would render the word "player" superfluous. > > There's also a cannon of construction that applies to this exact > > situation called the last antecedent rule [1], which suggests that the > > last possible antecedent should be preferred in interpreting meaning. > > (I know that we do not necessarily apply all legal principles, but it > > seems like this one might provide general guidance in this kind of > > situation, so we may want to adopt it.) If these principles are deemed > > to not apply, I would like to hear some reasoning about why they don't > > in this case. My apologies to the judge for not getting to this > > sooner; this CFJ has had an unusually rapid turnaround. > > > > [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/last_antecedent_rule > > > > -Aris > > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:20 AM, ATMunn <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> CFJ 3607: > >> The Door CAN generally be Slammed on a player after a Black > Card is > >> awarded to em, provided that eir most recent deregistration > took > >> place with eir consent. > >> > >> Rule in question (2507): > >> A Black Card is a card appropriate for a person who plays the > >> game, not currently a player, who either broke the rules while not > >> a player or broke them while a player and then deregistered in bad > >> faith. A Black Card CANNOT be issued to current players, and no > >> more than 3 Black Cards CAN be issued per week. Any attempt to > >> issue a Black Card in violation of these limitations is > >> INEFFECTIVE. > >> When a Black Card is issued, as a penalty, within the next 7 > days, > >> any player CAN once, with Agoran Consent, Slam the Door at the bad > >> sport. After the Door is Slammed at a person, e CANNOT register or > >> take any game actions for 30 days, rules to the contrary > >> notwithstanding. Any attempt to Slam the Door on a player or a > >> person whose most recent deregistration took place without eir > >> consent is INEFFECTIVE, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. > >> > >> The rule in question here (see above) clearly states that the Door CAN > >> be slammed on a bad sport after e has had a Black Card issued to them. > >> The problem then is, can it also be slammed on a player, as long as eir > >> most recent deregistration took place with eir consent? > >> > >> This rule strictly states that Black Cards CANNOT be issued to players. > >> Rule 2426 says that "It is inappropriate to award a card to a non-player > >> person unless the rule defining the card says otherwise." The Black > >> Cards rule certainly says otherwise, and "inappropriate" is not a > >> binding term. So, it is IMPOSSIBLE to issue a Black Card to a current > >> player. > >> > >> So, this arises the question: What if a Black Card was issued to a > >> non-player person who then became a player? This is certainly possible, > >> as long as the Door was not Slammed on em when they were a non-player. > >> > >> Now we must determine if the Door CAN be Slammed on a player, if that > >> player managed to get a Black Card as a non-player and then registered > >> within the last 7 days. Rule 2507 says that "any attempt to Slam the > >> Door at a *player* or a person whose most recent deregistration took > >> place without eir consent is INEFFECTIVE." The answer is right here. > >> The rule specifically says a player or a person, so the Door CAN be > >> Slammed on players. And, if it is IMPOSSIBLE to Slam the Door on > >> someone if eir most recent deregistration took place without eir > >> consent, then the reverse is true as well, and it is POSSIBLE to Slam > >> the Door on a person whose most recent deregistration took place with > >> eir consent. > >> > >> I judge CFJ 3607 TRUE. >
