Format for e-mail
| CFJ: | 2760 |
| Interest Index: | 0 |
| Statement: | Murphy CAN award me at least 20 x-points. |
| Caller: | coppro |
| |
| Judge: | Yally |
| Judgement: | FALSE |
| |
| Currently Eligible: | Murphy |
History:
| Called by coppro | 22 Jan 2010 03:14:42 GMT |
| Assigned to Yally | 30 Jan 2010 07:04:36 GMT |
| Judged FALSE by Yally | 30 Jan 2010 16:42:42 GMT |
Caller's Arguments: | | (22 Jan 2010 03:14:42 GMT) |
I was owed in excess of 20 x-points last week from the FRContest (as
clearly stated in Murphy's awards message for that week), but due to
prior awards, it was IMPOSSIBLE. Does the general principle that a SHALL
ASAP becomes an open-ended SHALL apply even when it is impossible?
Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy: | | (22 Jan 2010 04:06:15 GMT) |
I think this is FALSE for the following reasons, though
#2 and #3 apply only to contests with the same circumstances:
1) Rule 2233's "except" might apply to both the CAN and SHALL.
2) The FRContest awards are SHALL ASAP after the end of a week, thus
the duration of the CANNOT coincides precisely with the duration
of the ASAP.
3) The FRContest explicitly states "subject to limits imposed by the
rules".
Judge Yally's Arguments: | | (30 Jan 2010 16:42:42 GMT) |
I judge this FALSE. Murphy's arguments should be sufficient to force
this case to be false, but I would like to set precedent that CAN does
not imply SHALL as SHALL is simply defined as:
6. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the
described action violates the rule in question.
Just because you're doing something illegal doesn't mean there's
necessarily a way to avoid that. However, failing to award Murphy 20x
points would cause you to be guilty of a crime, as in order to be
guilty the following must be true:
(e) the Accused could have reasonably avoided committing the
breach without committing a different breach of equal or
greater severity.
