Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2699

===================  CFJ 2699 (Interest Index = 0)  ====================

    Murphy was audited today

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

Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  Murphy
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by ais523:                       19 Sep 2009 20:22:51 GMT
Assigned to Murphy:                     23 Sep 2009 22:31:35 GMT
Judged FALSE by Murphy:                 26 Sep 2009 19:12:43 GMT

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

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

I hereby give at least 10 seconds of notice that I intend to audit
Murphy.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

I play Penalty Box to audit Murphy.

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

Caller's Arguments:

Rule 2262:
{{{
       * Penalty Box      - Specify an entity. When you play this card
                            you CAN audit that entity With Notice (you
                            must have previously declared intent as
                            per other rules), so long as you do so in
                            the same message as playing this card and
                            that entity has not been audited since you
                            declared intent.
}}}

The plain language of this rule says that, with notice (which was
given), I can audit someone by playing a Penalty Box. The only possible
counter-argument to this that I can think of is people saying "but
that's a dependent action, you can't do it any other way"; but dependent
actions /do not/ redefine words in the rules!

Excerpts from Rule 1728:
{{{
      A rule or contract which purports to allow a person (the
      performer) to perform an action dependently (a dependent action)
      by a set of one or more of the following methods (N is 1 unless
      otherwise specified):
[snip]
      thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if and
      only if all of the following are true:
}}}
Rule 1728 does not define With Notice at all; instead, it treats the
words as a trigger that allow an action to be done in a dependent
manner. In fact, I can't see any rules or contracts that purport to
allow a person to perform an action /dependently/; they say "with
support", or "without 3 objections", or "With Notice", but those
words /do not/ indicate a dependent action. The introduction to rule
1728 requires, as one of the conditions, that the rule purports to allow
a person to perform an action dependently; as far as I can tell, no rule
or contract purports such a thing. (Rule 1728 does not define "With
Notice", or "with support", or whatever; it merely triggers on the words
in question, adding a dependent-action mechanism when the words are used
and the rule already claims that a dependent action exists.)

This is rather bad; I suspect it means that there are no dependent
actions anywhere in the rules. I missed this point when originally
constructing the scam, but it's likely broken dependent actions for
quite a while. Yay for self-ratification!

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

Judge Murphy's Arguments:

Rule 1728 does not require the rule or contract in question to
explicitly use the word "dependently"; purporting to allow a
person to perform an action using a dependent method is sufficient
to imply it.

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