I change all sitting players to standing.
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2077
============================== CFJ 2077 ==============================
Ivan Hope is a player
========================================================================
Caller: Ivan Hope
Judge: BobTHJ
Judgement: TRUE
Appeal: 2077a
Decision: REMAND
Judge: comex
Judgement:
========================================================================
History:
Called by Ivan Hope: 14 Jul 2008 18:54:49 GMT
Assigned to BobTHJ: 17 Jul 2008 06:11:18 GMT
Judged TRUE by BobTHJ: 17 Jul 2008 16:48:55 GMT
Appealed by BobTHJ: 17 Jul 2008 16:48:55 GMT
Appealed by ais523: 17 Jul 2008 16:51:24 GMT
Appealed by Quazie: 17 Jul 2008 16:51:36 GMT
Appeal 2077a: 17 Jul 2008 16:53:57 GMT
Appealed by Goethe: 17 Jul 2008 16:58:06 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal: 21 Jul 2008 19:11:07 GMT
Remanded to BobTHJ: 21 Jul 2008 19:11:07 GMT
BobTHJ recused: 03 Aug 2008 13:16:22 GMT
Assigned to Zefram: 03 Aug 2008 13:27:04 GMT
Zefram recused: 10 Aug 2008 22:04:05 GMT
Assigned to comex: (as of this message)
========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
The only
way I can deregister, apart from exiling myself, is by announcement
(P1 Rule 869: "A player CAN deregister by announcement."). By P3 Rule
478, "Fora", I do something by announcement by announcing that I do
it, and I announce something by sending a public message, and I send a
public message by sending a message to a public forum. In other words,
the only way I can deregister by announcement is by sending a sentence
to the effect of "I deregister" to a public forum; "Using . . ., I act
on behalf of myself" is not even close. The fact that P2 Rule 2145,
"Partnerships", doesn't work if a partnership has no way to send
messages is irrelevant, as not only does Rule 478 take precedence over
Rule 2145, but interpreting the existence of a contract that must send
messages in order to do stuff as meaning that contracts can send
messages on behalf of their parties is a HUGE stretch, especially
given that partnerships are generally not parties to themselves. P3
Rule 217, "Interpreting the Rules", states that the text of the rules
takes precedence over game custom, common sense, and past judgements.
========================================================================
Caller's Evidence:
I agree to the following: {This is a pledge. Ivan Hope CXXVII can act
on behalf of himself by announcement. Ivan Hope CXXVII can terminate
this contract by announcement.}
Using the mechanism defined by the above contract, I act on behalf of
myself to deregister.
========================================================================
Judge BobTHJ's Arguments:
I tend to agree with Goethe's remarks:
For the current case, I think "I act on behalf of myself" is what a
speech act is by definition; whenever we say "I do X" we are implicitly
saying that we are acting on behalf of ourselves. So the pledge is
a tautology, "I act on behalf of myself to do X" simplifies to "I do X"
and the deregistration worked.
========================================================================
Gratuitous Arguments by BobTHJ:
Oops, I did indeed mean FALSE. All the more reason to appeal.
========================================================================
Gratuitous Arguments by Ivan Hope:
I guess I do agree that if I agree to a contract letting people act on
my behalf, they should be able to do so; I don't believe that it
should be possible to amend a contract to allow acting on a person's
behalf without that person's explicit, specific consent.
So, I'm conceding that I'm not a player. Woo-hoo.
========================================================================
