On Friday 25 January 2008 04:02:07 Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1882
>
> ============================== CFJ 1882 ==============================
>
> watcher is a Player
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Caller: comex
>
> Judge: woggle
> Judgement:
>
> ========================================================================
>
> History:
>
> Called by comex: 25 Jan 2008 03:55:47 GMT
> Assigned to woggle: (as of this message)
>
> ========================================================================
Proto-judgement:
There are two seperate issues here:
(1) Whether the entity with the e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(henceforth Pavitra) successfully registered;
(2) Whether watcher is a valid way of referring to em.
On issue (1):
The exact text of Pavitra's relevant announcement is:
{{
I request to be registered as a "watcher".
If the above causes me to be registered as a player, then I switch my
posture to Leaning.
..
Pavitra
}}
R869's define the verb "to be registered" and, since there is no other
rule-recognized defintion, its definition should take precedence per R754.
Thus, the message in fact announces in the R869 sense that Pavitra "requests
registration", which is sufficient to cause Pavitra to become a player unless
otherwise prohibited. All indications are that Pavitra is a first-class
person, and there is no record of Pavitra being prohibited from registering
by an active sentence of EXILE or by having deregistered by announcement in
the past 30 days, thus this registration was effective.
There is some evidence that Pravita did not intend to become a player. This
might be seen to create a R101 issue, since per R2171, the registration
process is to preserve player's rights as if entering the rules were a
binding agreement. Problematically, every relevant rule here takes precedence
over R2171, so R2171's declaration cannot make ineffective R869's process for
registration in spite of R101's requirement for "explicit and willful
consent" to become party to a binding agreement. Ignoring R2171, the rules
cannot constitute a binding agreement that is joined by becoming a player as
they (as far as the rules themselves are concerned) are equally binding on
players as non-players. (This is especially relevant in this case as Pravita
is party to an R2145 agreement and thus was already subject to some
obligations under the rules.)
On issue (2):
"watcher" is a valid way of referring to Pavitra because eir announcement of
registration can be reasonably interpreted as requesting the
nickname "watcher".
Thus the question is whether "watcher" is ambiguous -- perhaps designating one
or more of the (non-rule-recognized) "watchers" that appear in the
Registrar's report. The statement's use of "watcher" clearly implies that it
is intended to name an single, unique entity. Since the
Registrar-recognized "Watcher" is an unofficial title or position and not a
name and since there are many watchers unofficially recognized by the
Registrar, this usage cannot be reasonably attributed as referring to those
watchers. Thus, the Registrar report watchers do not create sufficient
ambiguity to require a judgement of UNDETERMINED.
Therefore, I proto-judge TRUE.
-woggle
