Get some series-qualifier principle up in this place. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Aris Merchant < [email protected]> wrote:
> I intend, with 2 support, to file a motion to reconsider this > judgement. It fails to consider the fact that all players are persons > under Rule 869, which states that "A registered person is a Player". > This provides very strong evidence that the rule should be interpreted > "a player or (a person who...)", not "(a player or a person who..)", > because the later reading would render the word "player" superfluous. > There's also a cannon of construction that applies to this exact > situation called the last antecedent rule [1], which suggests that the > last possible antecedent should be preferred in interpreting meaning. > (I know that we do not necessarily apply all legal principles, but it > seems like this one might provide general guidance in this kind of > situation, so we may want to adopt it.) If these principles are deemed > to not apply, I would like to hear some reasoning about why they don't > in this case. My apologies to the judge for not getting to this > sooner; this CFJ has had an unusually rapid turnaround. > > [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/last_antecedent_rule > > -Aris > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:20 AM, ATMunn <[email protected]> wrote: > > CFJ 3607: > > The Door CAN generally be Slammed on a player after a Black Card > is > > awarded to em, provided that eir most recent deregistration took > > place with eir consent. > > > > Rule in question (2507): > > A Black Card is a card appropriate for a person who plays the > > game, not currently a player, who either broke the rules while not > > a player or broke them while a player and then deregistered in bad > > faith. A Black Card CANNOT be issued to current players, and no > > more than 3 Black Cards CAN be issued per week. Any attempt to > > issue a Black Card in violation of these limitations is > > INEFFECTIVE. > > When a Black Card is issued, as a penalty, within the next 7 > days, > > any player CAN once, with Agoran Consent, Slam the Door at the bad > > sport. After the Door is Slammed at a person, e CANNOT register or > > take any game actions for 30 days, rules to the contrary > > notwithstanding. Any attempt to Slam the Door on a player or a > > person whose most recent deregistration took place without eir > > consent is INEFFECTIVE, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. > > > > The rule in question here (see above) clearly states that the Door CAN > > be slammed on a bad sport after e has had a Black Card issued to them. > > The problem then is, can it also be slammed on a player, as long as eir > > most recent deregistration took place with eir consent? > > > > This rule strictly states that Black Cards CANNOT be issued to players. > > Rule 2426 says that "It is inappropriate to award a card to a non-player > > person unless the rule defining the card says otherwise." The Black > > Cards rule certainly says otherwise, and "inappropriate" is not a > > binding term. So, it is IMPOSSIBLE to issue a Black Card to a current > > player. > > > > So, this arises the question: What if a Black Card was issued to a > > non-player person who then became a player? This is certainly possible, > > as long as the Door was not Slammed on em when they were a non-player. > > > > Now we must determine if the Door CAN be Slammed on a player, if that > > player managed to get a Black Card as a non-player and then registered > > within the last 7 days. Rule 2507 says that "any attempt to Slam the > > Door at a *player* or a person whose most recent deregistration took > > place without eir consent is INEFFECTIVE." The answer is right here. > > The rule specifically says a player or a person, so the Door CAN be > > Slammed on players. And, if it is IMPOSSIBLE to Slam the Door on > > someone if eir most recent deregistration took place without eir > > consent, then the reverse is true as well, and it is POSSIBLE to Slam > > the Door on a person whose most recent deregistration took place with > > eir consent. > > > > I judge CFJ 3607 TRUE. > -- >From V.J. Rada
