spoon-business: Judgement on RFJ 26

[Matthew G Potter <mpotter@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

[[  time to put on the judicial legislation hat ]]

I rule TRUE.

Rule 237 states that the only possible judgements on an RFJ are True, 
False, and Undecided (I omit the Refusal option here because Zagarna 
clearly did not refuse to judge the RFJ).  In this case, Zagarna ruled that 
the statement for RFJ 20 was false.  Having done so, Zagarna was free to 
give judicial orders which would bring the gamestate into accord with his 
judgement.  However, while he attempted to give a judicial order, it was 
not an order based on the RFJ's truth or falsehood--it was based on his 
comment that he was a good judge.  The order did not bring the gamestate 
into accord with the the fact that the statement was false--it was meant to 
alter the gamestate according to the judge's commentary and justification 
of his decision.

As per Rule 214, a Judge can "issue one or more Judicial Orders to bring 
the game state into accord with the result of the Judgment."  A Judgement, 
according to Rule 237, only states the truth or falsehood of the statement 
being judged.  While Judges may give analysis or commentary on their 
judgements (as I do here), such comments are incapable of significance in 
the gamestate--they only provide personal justification for the Judge's 
ruling of true, false, or undecided on the RFJ at hand.

The Judicial Order Zagarna attempted to give did not bring the gamestate 
into accord with his ruling of False on the statement, "Alterations to 
Active Proposals or Motions which are not recognised by the start of an 
nweek's voting do not alter any Ballot Issues."  It instead attempted to 
alter gamestate according to opinions expressed in the Zagarna's subsequent 
discussion, and as such is an inappropriate Judicial Order.

Judicial Orders:
1)  The Administrator will remove any points from Zagarna's score, and any 
Wins on his record, that may have been awarded as a result of the judgement 
on RFJ 20.