It all makes sense... which is unfortunate. Stupid English meanings
On 2/22/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the matter of CFJs 1618, 1619, and 1620: As the ruleset does not supply a definition of "active" or "inactive", and neither law nor mathematics provides an applicable definition, I find that the ordinary English meaning of the words applies. Most uses of "active" in the ruleset refer to "active player", which under usual English grammar must be interpreted as meaning a player who is actively playing. Merely being a player does not constitute active play; one must engage in actions that are of significance to the rules, such as voting, publishing official reports, or participating in the judicial process. Passive behaviour that is significant to the rules, such as doing nothing to allow a time limit to expire, is not active play. I find that a player need not be presently peforming any of these actions in order to be an "active player"; any recent activity, or especially a pattern of activity, qualifies one as an "active player". Rule 1826 and the statement of CFJ 1618 refer to a person being "active" without using the phrase "active player". This could be interpreted as referring to a wider standard of activity. An active player (as defined above) is definitely "active" in the context of the game. A non-player who engages in game-relevant actions, such as calling CFJs, is also "active". I leave open the question of whether game-unrelated activity can also qualify one as "active", because it does not affect these CFJs. For CFJ 1618, Quazie's level of activity is to be judged at the time the CFJ was called (R217). At that instant Quazie was calling for judgement, which is definitely game-relevant activity. E was therefore definitely active in the context of the game, and so I judge CFJ 1618 FALSE. It is not necessary for this CFJ to consider how far in the past relevant activity can be in order for a person to qualify as "active". For CFJ 1619, I note that very little in the ruleset is actually limited to active players. The main one is voting. I note that on 2007-01-30 Quazie purported to vote on proposals, including specifically AGAINST proposal 4896. The validity of this action depends on eir eligibility, which depends on being an active player. On 2007-01-24 e had dismissed CFJ 1595, which is a rule-relevant activity. I find that e was an active player both at the time that proposal 4896 was distributed and when e purported to vote on it. The vote was valid, and so I judge CFJ 1619 FALSE. When proposal 4866 was adopted, the ruleset ceased to define the term "active". I find that, therefore, it is at this instant that the ordinary English meaning of the word commenced to prevail. There is no legal basis for GreyKnight's assertion that some mixture of the English meaning and the repealed definition applies. I therefore judge CFJ 1620 FALSE. -zefram
-- Brandon Kwaselow (Quazie) University of Michigan LS&A, Residential College Computer Science
