============================ Appeal 1266a ============================
Appeal initiated: 09 Feb 2001 04:15:15 GMT
Assigned to Chuck (panelist): 09 Feb 2001 16:08:14 GMT
Assigned to Steve (panelist): 09 Feb 2001 16:08:14 GMT
Assigned to Wes (panelist): 09 Feb 2001 16:08:14 GMT
Steve moves to SUSTAIN: 13 Feb 2001 05:24:11 GMT
Chuck moves to SUSTAIN: 16 Feb 2001 15:57:55 GMT
Wes moves to SUSTAIN: 17 Feb 2001 02:12:29 GMT
Final decision (SUSTAIN): 17 Feb 2001 02:12:29 GMT
Panelist Steve's Arguments:
In accordance with R1694, the Board is to consider only the correctness
of Crito's decision to DISMISS CFJ 1266.
Judge Crito dismissed CFJ 1266 under the provisions of R1563 and
R1565(v), on the grounds that the CFJ does not consist of "a single
clearly-labeled Statement" and therefore lacks standing.
Goethe issued his CFJ by saying:
I Call for Judgement on the following statements, with a TRUE
judgement implying TRUE for all of the following numbered
It seems there are two ways one could read this. One could take one's
lead from Goethe's use of the plural "statements", and read the text
that followed as several statements.
Or one could take one's lead from Goethe's use of the singular "with a
TRUE Judgement implying TRUE..." and read it as a single statement
consisting of seven conjoined sub-statements.
I note that even given Goethe's use of the singular "Judgement", one
could still perfectly well read the whole declaration as saying "I Call
for Judgement on the following statements, with a TRUE judgement [on any
one of them] implying TRUE for all of the following numbered statements."
This reading supports Crito's view that the CFJ consists of multiple
But in any case, what does seem clear is that there is considerable
ambiguity about how Goethe's call should be treated. Reasonable people
might well (and evidently do) disagree about which of the possible
readings should be preferred, but Crito is as entitled to his view as
anyone. It does not seem to me to be obviously mistaken.
I therefore SUSTAIN Crito's Judgement in CFJ 1266.
Panelist Chuck's Arguments:
I SUSTAIN Crito's Dismissal of CFJ 1266.
I tend to agree with Crito that CFJ 1266, as distributed, does not
consist of a "single, clearly-labelled statement." While I would
not go so far as to say that "statement" should be interpreted so
narrowly as to mean only a single declarative sentence (item 1
of the CFJ contains two sentences, for example, and that might
well constitute a single statement), I agree with Crito that the
CFJ, as presented, consists of multiple statements.
Admittedly, this point is debateable. Since I offer no objective
means by which someone can determine whether a collection of sentences
is one statement or several, a judge must use eir own sound judgement,
even though this may be subjective. What one judge finds to be
a single statement, another may find to be several, particularly
in borderline cases such as this one. But using such sound judgement
when there is no objective standard is precisely what Crito has done
I would also like to address the argument that the CFJ should
be considered a single statement because of the prefacing remark
Goethe made in calling for judgement, namely "I Call for Judgement
on the following statements, with a TRUE judgement implying TRUE
for all of the following numbered statements:" Notwithstanding
that Goethe emself refers to the numbered items as statements (plural)
*twice*, I believe COTC Wes is correct not to include "with a TRUE
judgement implying TRUE for all of the following numbered statements:"
as part of the statement to be judged. First, the use of the colon
indicates that something (in this case, "the following statements")
*follows* the colon; that which is to be judged comes after the colon.
More importantly, it is clearer if we note some related examples.
A similar construction is commonly seen: "I call for judgement on
the following statement, barring X: '...'" Clearly in this case (and
as supported by game custom) "barring X" is not part of the statement
to be judged. To take a more radical but hypothetical example, consider
"I call for judgement on the following statement, with a TRUE judgement
implying that the sun is pink and the grass is orange: '...'" The Judge
in such a case would be correct to judge the statement at hand just as e
would if the phrase "with a TRUE judgement implying that the sun
is pink and the grass is orange:" were not present. If the statement is
true, e can safely and correctly judge it TRUE without implying that
the sun is pink and the grass is orange. A TRUE judgement implies that
the statement judged is true, and a FALSE judgement implies that the
statement judged is false; and nothing more, in spite of any phrase
occuring outside the statement, whether it be one such as Goethe made in
the case at hand, or one such as the hypothetical above.
It has also been pointed out that the desired effect could have been
achieved by using a construction such as "I call for judgement on
the following statement: 'The following numbered items are all true:
1)... 2)... 3...'" I agree that such a statement should be considered
a single statement and judged accordingly. However, just because one
can construct a single statement with the desired effect does not mean
that what was actually presented for judgement was a single statement.
Finally, I note along with Crito that there is a distinct possibility
in my mind that COTC Wes should have treated the statements as seven
separate CFJs. However, I decline to rule on that issue here, and
leave it to others to pursue that possibility if they wish to.
Panelist Wes's Arguments:
Quite simply, the fact that there is so much disagreement upon whether
there is a single Statement implies that it is not *clearly* identifiable.
Therefore, it should be Dismissed. With that in mind, we SUSTAIN Crito's