Re: spoon-business: RFJ 16

[Wbfu Xbegorva <kortbein@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Joel Uckelman sprach:
>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.

TRUE

I concur with the Plaintiff's now-more-carefully-thought-out
analysis.




Josh

-- 
josh blog: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/blog/