1097

======================================================================
                               CFJ 1097

  Player Macross has issued an Order the text of which is:

    I hereby Order and command Player Swann to refrain from using
    words that are not spelled the same backwards as forwards when
    issuing any Administrative, Judicial, Appellate or Private Orders
    unless the issuing of those Orders is explicitly required of 'em
    by the Rules or by an Order issued by Player Macross.

======================================================================

Judge:        Kolja A.

Judgement:    TRUE

Eligible:     Antimatter, Crito, elJefe, General Chaos, Harlequin,
              Kolja A., Michael, Morendil, Murphy, Oerjan, Steve

Not eligible:
Caller:       Macross
Barred:       Swann
Disqualified: Blob, Chuck (by request)
On hold:      -

======================================================================

History:
  Called by Macross, Fri, 29 May 1998 19:06:23 -0400
  Assigned to Kolja A., Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:20:04 +0100
  Judged TRUE, Fri, 12 Jun 1998 15:34:11 +0200
  Published, Mon, 15 Jun 1998 09:44:53 +0100

======================================================================

Judgement: TRUE

Reasons and arguments:

1. History
==========

of the order in question (if this reconstruction is wrong, well,
sorry, but at least I tried.)


1.1. Original form

>Message-ID: <35635257.2289B622@gwis.com>
>Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 17:59:51 -0400
>From: Steven Swiniarski <saswann@gwis.com>
>Subject: OFF: 'Coup d'etat'

I hereby Order and command Player Antimatter to refrain from;
       issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined
       in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order
       that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute.


1.2. Amended in

>Message-ID: <356454C9.F93D991E@gwis.com>
>Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 12:22:33 -0400
>From: Steven Swiniarski <saswann@gwis.com>
>Subject: OFF: Coup d'etat Amendments

to

        I hereby Order and command Player Antimatter to refrain from;
        issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined in
        the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any
        Administrative, Judicial, Appellate or Private Order that is
        of a type that is not explicitly defined in the Rules.  Nor
        shall e issue any such Order except in such curcumstances
        where Rules explicitly permit em to issue such an Order.

1.3. Final amendment (at least as far as the present CFJ is concerned):

>Message-ID: <35659CB6.5BA4C2DF@gwis.com>
>Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:41:42 -0400
>From: Steven Swiniarski <saswann@gwis.com>
>Subject: OFF: The Coup Lives!  The Dictator finds a Loophole!

        I hereby Order Player Macross, to refrain from granting any
        and all Motions to stay, vacate or amend Orders issued by
        Player Swann.  Nor shall e grant any Motions to punish Swann
        for such Orders.  Nor shall e issue such Motions.  Nor shall e
        Order the stay, vacation or amendment of any Orders made by
        Player Swann. E must refrain from issuing any Administrative,
        Judicial, Appellate or Private Order that is of a type that is
        not explicitly defined in the Rules.  Nor shall e issue any
        such Order except in such curcumstances where Rules explicitly
        permit em to issue such an Order. If e has made an Order that
        does not conform to these criteria, e must vacate it within 72
        hours.


2. Were these amendments effective?
===================================


I don't see a problem with the first amendment.


2.1. Changing an order's target

Macross argued in a mail to a-d that the second amendment was
ineffective because it didn't only change the text of the order, but
also the player the order was directed at.

While I agree that the possibility to change, by amendment, the entity
an order is directed at is an unpleasant and possibly counterintuitive
one, this aesthetic consideration says nothing about the legality of
such changes (the possibility to vacate TOs after they have been
satisfied is ugly, too, but still it's there).

The rules don't explicitly define or limit the scope of order
amendments. While the entity issuing an order is determined by fact,
not by the choice of the entity issuing the order, the entity the
order is directed at is determined by the choice of the entity issuing
the order. Therefore I'm not convinced that the last amendment of the
order was ineffective because it tried to change the target of the
order.


2.2. Did the amended order fit the definition of an order?

Orders are defined in 1793 as

      An Order is a command, executed by a Player and directed to some
      entity requiring that entity to perform exactly one action, or
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      to refrain from performing one or more actions.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It may be argued that the underlined text should be parsed
interpreting the "or" as an "exclusive or". I am not sure this is true
- the sentence also makes sense if we read it as a template for the
form of orders. E.g., an order of the form "I order player XY to
transfer 5 VTs to me, or to refrain from actions A, B and C" seems to
me to fit the definition in 1793.

However, the final version of the order had the form "I order Macross
to refrain from actions A, B, etc, _and_ to perform action X" where X
is "vacate any orders already made and against the provisions in this
order within 72 hours." So it did not fit the definition of 1793. As
an amended order has
                                                  effect as if it
      had been originally executed in that form at the moment the
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      amendment becomes effective.
(1793) and the amended want-to-be-order was not an order, after
all, I think as an end result the original order _was_ amended, but
this amendment resulted in it becoming a non-order, with no legal
effects.

Note that the point is not whether the amended want-to-be-order was a
_valid_ or _legal_ order, but whether it was an order in the sense of
1793 at all.

Therefore the statement of this CFJ is true.

======================================================================

(Caller's) Arguments:

Evidence:

[Note:  I am issuing no Orders in this message.]

The following is the message I sent in which I issued the Order in
question.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Dave Smith" <macross@tiac.net>
To: "Agora-Official" <agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au>
Subject: OFF: Viva la revolution!
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 18:09:46 -0400

Swann wrote:
> The first such Order is amended to read as follows;
>
>        "I hereby Order Player Macross, to refrain from granting any and
>         all Motions to stay, vacate or amend Orders issued by
>         Player Swann.  Nor shall e grant any Motions to punish Swann
>         for such Orders.  Nor shall e issue such Motions.  Nor shall e
>         Order the stay, vacation or amendment of any Orders made by
>         Player Swann. E must refrain from issuing any Administrative,
>         Judicial, Appellate or Private Order that is of a type
>         that is not explicitly defined in the Rules.  Nor shall e
>         issue any such Order except in such curcumstances where Rules
>         explicitly permit em to issue such an Order. If e has made an
>         Order that does not conform to these criteria, e must vacate it
>         within 72 hours."
>
>

I believe that this order is invalid.  Rule 1793/0 reads in part:

      An Order is a command, executed by a Player and directed to some
      entity requiring that entity to perform exactly one action, or
      to refrain from performing one or more actions.

You have here amended an order to require me to take an action and
to refrain from taking actions.  However an order may only do one or
the other, not both.  Thus I believe this order is by definition not
an Order at all.


I issue the order below, only if it is legal for me to do:

I hereby Order and command Player Swann to refrain from using words
       that are not spelled the same backwards as forwards when
       issuing any Administrative, Judicial, Appellate or Private
       Orders unless the issuing of those Orders is explicitly
       required of 'em by the Rules or by an Order issued by Player
       Macross.


This should effectively hold off the dictator.

-Macross

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

This and the recent ruling on CFJ 1049 lead to the conclusion that the
Order was indeed issued.

======================================================================