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 <iamingodsa...@gmail.com> 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.
