On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I CFJ on the statement: All actions are regulated.
>
> Arguments: R2125 reads, in part:
>
> An action is regulated if:
>
> [...]
>
> d) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while
> certain conditions are satisfied. Such an action MAY NOT
> be performed except as allowed by the rules.
>
> R101 reads, in part:
>
> ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is
> not regulated.
>
> Thus, R101 indicates that any action MAY be performed while the
> condition of the action not being regulated is satisfied. This meets
> the criteria of R2125(d), which therefore defines the action as
> regulated.
Gratuitous arguments:
R101(ii) says that it 'may' be performed not that it 'MAY' be
performed. This could be a material difference.
The judge should also consider whether reading R2125(d) this way would
be barred by R101(ii) taking precedence over R2125(d). (Can one read
into R101(ii) that there must exist unregulated actions? Or even
something stronger, like that the rules are inherently limited to
controlling aspects relevant to the game?)
> I CFJ on the statement: The CotC CAN assign a poorly qualified player
> to judge a case.
>
> Arguments: By Rule 1868, the CotC CAN assign a qualified judge to a
> case if it requires one and has no judge assigned. The action of
> assigning a judge is therefore regulated by both R2125(c) and
> R2125(e), both of which stipulate that the action CANNOT be performed
> except as allowed by the rules. Rule 1868 also stipulates that the
> CotC SHALL not assign as judge an entity who is poorly qualified to
> judge the case. Since R1868 makes it possible but does not allow it,
> R2125(c) and R2125(e) both stipulate that the action is in fact
> impossible.
Gratuitous arguments:
"Allowed" may need to be interpreted as, in some cases, being possible
because of and, in others, being permitted because of. ("The pipes
allow water to enter your house"; "The law allows the police officer
to search your vehicle"... "The law allows people to put liens on your
property, but they may be liable if the liens are not legitimate"???)
Assigning a judge to a judicial case is not inherently possible
because judicial cases and their properties are rule-defined entities
and thus cannot be changed for the purposes of the rules except when a
rule makes it possible. (Some related actions are inherently possible,
of course, like announcing such an assignment and publishing a
document that purports to be an official report reflecting such an
assignment. None of these actions, however, have any inherent effect
on the rule-defined state of the rule-defined entity.) Therefore, it
may be reasonable to conclude that R1868 allows the CotC to assign a
qualified judge for the purposes of R2125(c) and R2125(e).
-woggle
