Index ← 1453 CFJ 1454 1455 → text
==============================  CFJ 1454  ==============================

    New York is the capital of England


Caller:                                 Peekee

Judge:                                  Michael
Judgement:                              DISMISS



Called by Peekee:                       10 Mar 2003 07:38:53 GMT
Assigned to Michael:                    21 Mar 2003 00:09:16 GMT
Dismissed by Michael:                   23 Mar 2003 22:12:39 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

See CFJ 1441 for arguments and details.


Judge Michael's Arguments:

There are two rules vying here:

Rule 991 (Power=2), which begins:

      Any person may request formal resolution of a dispute pertaining
      to this Nomic by submitting a Call for Judgement (CFJ) to the
      Clerk of the Courts.  The submission of a CFJ constitutes proof
      of the existence of such a dispute.

and, Rule 1565 (Power=1), which reads:

      A Judgement of DISMISSED should be delivered if and only if one
      or more of the following is true:

        i) The CFJ does not contain a single clearly-identified

       ii) After a reasonable effort to obtain all relevant
           information, the Judge can neither determine the Statement
           to be true nor determine it to be false.

      iii) The Statement does not relate to a matter relevant to the

       iv) The CFJ lacks standing, as defined elsewhere.

Rule 991 makes it very clear that there exists a dispute pertaining to
this Nomic.  Player Peekee is unsure about his geography, and both by
submitting his statement, and by being a Player, one can be sure that
this is a "dispute" pertaining to this Nomic.

Is it a matter relevant to the Rules though?  I claim that the capital
of England is not, and so Rule 1565 compels me to DISMISS this CFJ.

This may seem sophistry but it enshrines existing practice, and is
consistent with the Rules (something pertaining to a Nomic is not
necessarily relevant to that Nomic's rules given that a Nomic consists
of more than just its rules).  Therefore I feel no guilt in my

Peekee's second argument suggests that because I had to refer to this
Nomic's rules in order to reach my decision, then the Statement is in
fact relevant to those Rules.  This is not the case.  He might
reasonably claim that the Statement is one that causes Rules to be
consulted and obeyed, but that does not mean it is relevant.

If he'd wanted a statement relevant to the rules he could have
explored this issue by simply submitting a CFJ with the following

  A CFJ statement automatically relates to a matter relevant to the

Therefore, I re-iterate, I DISMISS this CFJ.