On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner wrote: > Let me stress that I'm talking hypothetically. Roujo never actually called > for Judgement (wrong forum, hehe), and so > did not actually commit the Crime. But I am interested to know what the > Courts would consider a frivolous CFJ in the > sense of the last paragraph of R869.
Some context may or may not help at all! The registration rule is currently purposefully a little squishy, to be welcoming, trying to say that it doesn't matter what exact form a new player uses, as long as intent to register is pretty clear. Given that squishiness, for a while (maybe still) two things were going on: 1. Some new players (or former players re-registering) would purposefully try to register in a borderline or clever way that made it worth a CFJ on whether or not they succeeded - this was also testing what constituted 'consent' for R101(iii); 2. Since this happened a lot, an in-joke that developed was whenever an "innocent" newbie registered, no matter how clearly, someone would call a CFJ on whether it succeeded, making the newbie ask what e did wrong. Calling this "Hazing" was more or less meant to put a stop to this sort of thing. Basically because the joke was getting a little stale. But it's never been prosecuted, maybe it's useless. Or maybe it's a deterrent. No precedent really. You're right that the recent attempt to discussion wasn't at all CFJ- worthy - I was still half-asleep this morning when I thought it might be worth a CFJ. I'd call a test case to set a precedent for frivolousness, but if it were done to be a test case it might no longer be frivolous... (is that like the Uninteresting Number paradox?) -G.
