============================== CFJ 2069 ==============================
There are no game-relevant actions or intents of action in the
message sent by comex with Message-ID:
Called by G.: 11 Jul 2008 19:14:45 GMT
Assigned to BobTHJ: 12 Jul 2008 15:46:54 GMT
BobTHJ recused: 14 Jul 2008 15:11:45 GMT
Assigned to ais523: 17 Jul 2008 05:55:17 GMT
Judged FALSE by ais523: 18 Jul 2008 16:01:09 GMT
Appealed by omd: 18 Jul 2008 19:27:32 GMT
Appealed by root: 18 Jul 2008 20:56:33 GMT
Appealed by G.: 18 Jul 2008 20:59:35 GMT
Appeal 2069a: 18 Jul 2008 20:59:35 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal: 13 Aug 2008 23:46:12 GMT
Assigned to ais523: 13 Aug 2008 23:46:12 GMT
Judged FALSE by ais523: 15 Aug 2008 19:54:00 GMT
The precedent of CFJ 1971 strongly suggests that the following statement
in the cited message: "Disclaimer: Some or all of the statements in this
message may be false." invalidates all information content, and therefore
all actions or action intents, that might otherwise be contained in the
message. CFJ 1971 only allowed for "information-free" actions when such
disclaimers are present, which might not be conceptually possible anyway.
Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
Although I would like to note that the mentioned precedent is Goethe's
own, I unfortunately concur with it (if I had remembered that CFJ, I
wouldn't have included such a broad disclaimer). The entire message
is equivalent to "If 1 = 2, then I perform xxx actions". This doesn't
really count as me claiming that I perform the actions. The only
counter-argument is that whatever I say *later* in the message usually
doesn't count toward what I did *earlier* in the message. The
disclaimer is suitably vague and distanced that, if Rule 2149 did not
explicitly include it for its purposes, it wouldn't count toward the
truth value of any of the previous statements, and therefore doesn't
count for the purposes of Rule 478.
Judge ais523's Arguments:
Trivially FALSE; the verdict and existence of CFJ 1971 imply that there
was at least one attempt to file a CFJ in that message.
There is a deeper point underlying this, though, which I will file my
own CFJ to clarify, which is if the message would have had a
game-relevant action if it didn't file a CFJ, or if, for that matter, it
Appellant omd's Arguments:
> Trivially FALSE; the verdict and existence of CFJ 1971 imply that there
> was at least one attempt to file a CFJ in that message.
CFJ 1971 implies such actions are possible only if taking the action
does not depend upon the truth value of the statement, a situation
which may well not be the case for any game action. If you argue that
it is the case for initiating CFJs, you should maybe go into that with
more detail. I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgement.
> There is a deeper point underlying this, though, which I will file my
> own CFJ to clarify, which is if the message would have had a
> game-relevant action if it didn't file a CFJ, or if, for that matter, it
> was blank.
I have already filed such CFJs.
Judge ais523's Arguments:
I don't see how I failed to argue that the precedent of CFJ 1971 is that
CFJs can be filed even with a disclaimer saying that the messages in
question are not necessarily true; CFJ 1971 was itself filed with such a
disclaimer, and yet exists. Besides, FALSE anyway, because the message
announced at least one thing (the disclaimer itself) and an announcement
could be a game-relevant action (for instance, CFJs can be called on
it). So I again judge FALSE, and recommend that the appeals panel
reassign this case if it is appealed once more, as I don't believe
there's more to say on this.