CFJ 1989 asks if: > All actions are regulated.
The caller provides the following evidence: > 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. Assuming it hasn't been changed recently (I don't remember any proposals to change it), the first paragraph of R101 states, "Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or remove a person's defined rights." What it does not say is that every person MAY perform an action which e has the right to perform. An important phrase in R2125(d) is "explicitly state". R101 doesn't use the word "MAY" (it does use the word "may", but only in stating that no agreement or law "may" limit rights, not that persons "may" invoke them), so it doesn't explicitly state anything. Therefore, FALSE. In addition, R2125 mentions "that [an action] MAY be performed while certain conditions are satisfied". Interpreting "every player has the right to perform an action which is not regulated" as "any action MAY be performed while that action is not regulated" is a stretch, especially since "that action is not regulated" makes no sense outside the context of "any action MAY be performed"; a more natural interpretation would be simply "any action that is not regulated MAY be performed", which R2125 doesn't apply to at all. On the other hand, a statement such as "a player's posture MAY be flipped to Sitting while an Emergency Session is not in progress" (not that that statement appears in the rules anywhere) cannot be refactored so as not to include the "while", and "an Emergency Session is not in progress" does make sense outside of the context of this MAY. R2125 deals with cases like the latter, not like the former; therefore, FALSE. Now I mention woggle's arguments: > 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 don't see how "every player has the right to perform an action which is not regulated" could take precedence over "X is regulated" for any X, as the former doesn't state that any action is not regulated. There is the fact that there would be no reason to mention unregulated actions unless unregulated actions exist, but when that clause was added to R101, this case certainly hadn't been called and argued, so I consider this weak evidence of FALSE at best. That the rules are inherently limited to controlling aspects relevant to the game is what I'd say is not that good an interpretation of R101, but a plenty good statement of truth. All this given, I (intend to) judge FALSE. CFJ 1990 asks if: > The CotC CAN assign a poorly qualified player to judge a case. The caller, root, argues: > 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. The exact wording of this part of R1868 is "When a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned, the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by announcement". The action here is assigning a qualified entity to be its judge, and the conditions are that it requires a judge and has no judge assigned. Assigning a poorly qualified player is in fact assigning a qualified player, if I've read the rules right, meaning that R1868 states that the CotC CAN assign a poorly qualified entity as judge. The rule does not need to state that poorly qualified entities are in fact possible to assign any more than it needs to state that non-poorly qualified entities are possible to assign, or that qualified entities that are players are possible to assign. However, R1868 does indeed say that the CotC SHALL NOT assign a poorly qualified judge, and in an exciting twist (I thought so, at least), R2125 says, "Such an action CANNOT be performed except as allowed by the rules." Woggle helpfully points out: > "Allowed" may need to be interpreted as, in some cases, being possible > because of and, in others, being permitted because of. Since R2125 is ambiguous, we have to turn to precedent to interpret "allowed" in this case (does anybody know of any?), or, failing that, to the intention of the rule, which is probably to say that something CANNOT be done unless it CAN and MAY NOT be done unless it MAY, making the answer TRUE if there's no precedent. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
