spoon-business: RFJ 16

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I request judgment on the following statement:

Benjamin was a Player immediately before Judgment 13 was issued, and as 
such, must still be a Player since e has not forfeited and no Orders have 
been executed (or even issued) to remove em, and thus should by definition 
be on the Roster.

Analysis:

R124/0, dealing with legal precedent, indicates that a "Judgment shall 
guide interpretation of the Rules until such time as a subsequent Judgment 
contradicts it". Note that this says a "Judgment" and not the "statement 
and ruling". What this means is that the Judge's analysis is part of the 
Judgment, and must be taken into consideration.

Judgment 13 concluded that the statement "Benjamin should not be listed on 
the Roster." is true; however, the analysis submitted with it is at 
variance with its ruling, something which the Judge confirms as an error. 
If J13 is to "guide interpretation of the rules" how are we to apply it? 
Plausible arguments with diametrically opposed conclusions could be 
fashioned from the statement and ruling on one hand and the analysis on the 
other. The contradictory nature of J13 should weakens its strength as a 
precedent to practically nil.

Furthermore, J13 does not affect Benjamin's status as a Player. Clearly he 
was a Player prior to the Judgment, and the Judge did not issue a Judicial 
Order removing him. Ergo, Benjamin is still a Player.

R203/0 defines the Roster to be the "list of all Players". If Benjamin is a 
Player, then he must be on the list.

----
This RFJ is assigned number 16, and Josh Kortbein is the Judge.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net