Index ← 2061 CFJ 2062 2064 → text
==============================  CFJ 2062  ==============================

    The contract Ivan Hope just agreed to is a pledge because it states
    "Guvf vf n cyrqtr.", which is "This is a pledge." in rot13.


Caller:                                 Machiavelli

Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by Machiavelli:                  05 Jul 2008 02:47:16 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     06 Jul 2008 09:08:46 GMT
Judged TRUE by ais523:                  07 Jul 2008 17:07:35 GMT


Caller's Evidence:

I agree to the following: "This is a pledge. Guvf vf n cyrqtr. Vina
Ubcr PKKIVV FUNYY fngvfsl gur Jvaavat Pbaqvgvba bs Zhfvpvnafuvc nf
fbba nf cbffvoyr."


Judge ais523's Arguments:

The relevant rules here are rules 754 and 2191. Here are the relevant
portions of those rules:
(1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of
    a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is
    inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as
    the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.
(4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule
    by default has its ordinary-language meaning.
A pledge is a contract identifying itself as such.  A pledge
requires at least one party.
First, I rule that rot13 is not "ordinary language"; although it is
reasonably common on the Internet, it is used for the precise purpose of
making things harder to read without some effort (often to hide
spoilers, for instance). Also, writing something in rot13 is not really
a difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect.

However, it seems likely that rot13 can be described as "the use of a
synonym or abbreviation", and in this context it does not create an
ambiguity in meaning, especially because in the same message the
pledge's author stated that it was rot13 and gave instructions for
decoding it (thus effectively defining a local synonym). Therefore, rule
754 would seem to encourage TRUE.

Also, rule 2191 states "identifying itself as such", not "clearly" or
"unambiguously" identifying. (I exploited this particular loophole to
win the game a few weeks ago, and the rule has not been changed since
despite my efforts to patch it.) The contract clearly does identify
itself as a pledge, as do the words in question (as Ivan Hope CXXVII has
stated that they do and explained how), so rule 2191 also encourages

As there seem to be no reasonable arguments for FALSE, I therefore judge