============================== CFJ 1787 ==============================
It is permissible to judge the question on veracity in this case
Called by root: 10 Nov 2007 21:22:24 GMT
Assigned to Murphy: 10 Nov 2007 21:38:58 GMT
Judged UNDECIDABLE by Murphy: 10 Nov 2007 23:15:46 GMT
Appealed by Taral: 10 Nov 2007 23:35:35 GMT
Appealed by Murphy: 11 Nov 2007 00:04:20 GMT
Appealed by Zefram: 11 Nov 2007 09:01:57 GMT
Appeal 1787a: 11 Nov 2007 09:13:08 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal: 13 Nov 2007 11:25:17 GMT
Assigned to Murphy: 13 Nov 2007 17:26:24 GMT
Judged UNDECIDABLE by Murphy: 17 Nov 2007 23:29:13 GMT
* A judgement of IRRELEVANT is not appropriate, because the veracity
of the statement determines whether the initiator wins the game, per
* A judgement of TRUE or FALSE is permissible if and only if it is
appropriate. Since only one of (TRUE, FALSE) can logically be
appropriate, only one judgement from that set can logically be
* If a judgement of TRUE is permissible, then a judgement of FALSE is
not permissible. The judgement of TRUE is therefore not applicable, a
* If a judgement of FALSE is permissible, then a judgement of TRUE is
not permissible and thus not applicable. The judgement of FALSE is
therefore not permissible, a contradiction.
* A judgement of UNDECIDABLE is therefore appropriate.
* A judgement of UNDETERMINED is not appropriate, because no
additional information would result in a different judgement being
Judge Murphy's Arguments:
I accept the caller's arguments and judge UNDECIDABLE.
Appellant Taral's Arguments:
I intend to appeal this Judgement with two support. I still believe
that a judgement of "IRRELEVANT" is appropriate in this instance,
since CFJs cannot and should not be allowed to create their own
relevance given the wording of the rule.
Judge Murphy's Arguments:
I agree with Appellant Eris that a judgement of IRRELEVANT would have
been appropriate. I reject the argument that a CFJ is automatically
relevant because its processing triggers various rule mechanisms that
the caller wishes to test, on the grounds that the caller can just as
easily question the operation of those mechanisms directly.
However, I stand by my original argument that a judgement of UNDECIDABLE
was appropriate. Rule 2158 explicitly gave me discretion to choose any
appropriate judgement, and Agora has judicial precedent against altering
a judgement on appeal solely because another judge would have made a
different choice. Accordingly, I once again judge UNDECIDABLE.
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
This still misses it. Judge Murphy's "original" arguments, which were
in fact the Caller's, were found to be incorrect by the appeals board. The
caller claimed that the reason UNDECIDABLE was the only appropriate
judgement was that TRUE and FALSE were clearly inappropriate. The appeals
board came up with a demonstration that TRUE or FALSE were *not* clearly
inappropriate. So UNDECIDABLE *might* be reasonable, but the judge has still
given no actual arguments for it! If you want to judge UNDECIDABLE, you need
to come up with some arguments other than the Caller's, which the Appeals
Board rejected. (I in fact support UNDECIDABLE but not with this precedent).
The judgement is actually self-contradictory:
1. In eir original (caller/judge) arguments, e claims that e must
judge as e does because IRRELEVANT is unreasonable, which is
a key point of the argument.
2. In the new judgement, e accepts that IRRELEVANT is reasonable.
3. And then says "e stands by eir original argument."
So to sum up: E accepts that IRRELEVANT is reasonable, and tben
judges as e does based [in part] on the argument that IRRELEVANT is
unreasonable! This just shouldn't stand as precedent. I recommend
Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
I interpret the statement as implicitly looking forward to what its
judge will be allowed to do, thus allowing self-reference and making
both TRUE and FALSE inappropriate (according to the caller's arguments).
I stand by my previous interpretation that IRRELEVANT is appropriate,
and that the caller's arguments were incorrect in claiming that it was
not. However, the appropriateness of UNDECIDABLE does not depend on
this, only on the inappropriateness of TRUE and FALSE.
While I have the floor, I take the opportunity to apologize to Panelist
Goethe for improperly skimming past eir original appellate arguments,
as well as to Caller root for failing to give sufficient credit to eir
original arguments. I then (pseudo-)judge UNDECIDABLE.