Actually, as pointed out in another thread, the calling of this CFJ was
INEFFECTIVE, so it doesn't even matter. .-.
On 11/27/2017 9:28 PM, ATMunn wrote:
Ah.
On 11/27/2017 9:19 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
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.
