========================= Criminal Case 2107 =========================
Ivan Hope violated R2149 by making the untruthful statement
"UNDECIDABLE is never appropriate."
Called by G.: 22 Jul 2008 19:13:37 GMT
Defendant Machiavelli informed: 25 Jul 2008 06:55:29 GMT
Pre-trial phase ended: 25 Jul 2008 15:50:38 GMT
Assigned to Wooble: 27 Jul 2008 22:39:02 GMT
Judged GUILTY/FINE by Wooble: 28 Jul 2008 00:10:57 GMT
Appealed by Machiavelli: 28 Jul 2008 01:11:10 GMT
Appeal 2107a: 28 Jul 2008 01:11:10 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal: 10 Aug 2008 20:55:14 GMT
Assigned to Wooble: 10 Aug 2008 20:55:14 GMT
Wooble recused: 23 Aug 2008 16:44:41 GMT
Assigned to woggle: 26 Aug 2008 23:26:36 GMT
Judged GUILTY/FINE by woggle: 07 Sep 2008 23:38:40 GMT
Appealed by Machiavelli: 08 Sep 2008 10:43:01 GMT
Appeal 2107b: 08 Sep 2008 10:43:01 GMT
AFFIRMED on Appeal: 15 Sep 2008 20:03:08 GMT
I allege that no reasonable person that has read the rules containing R1503,
containing the phrase "UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if..." could make that
statement and not know it was untrue. It is clear that ihope knows
where the rule is so is recklessly ignoring the clause. I recommend a
relatively harsh punishment (chokey or greater) as e as told the alleged
lie as a statement in a court case in a direct attempt to punish someone
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, ihope wrote:
> I initiate a criminal CFJ against Goethe for violating rule 2158 by
> judging UNDECIDABLE on CFJ 2086. I initiate a criminal CFJ against
> Goethe for violating rule 2158 by judging UNDECIDABLE on CFJ 2087.
> Evidence: the above quote. Arguments: UNDECIDABLE is never
Gratuitous Arguments by Machiavelli:
After reading Rule 591, "Inquiry Cases" (where does Rule
1503 come in?), I had forgotten about the "logically undecidable" part
of it, only remembering the "not capable of being accurately described
as either false or true" part.
If there are multiple consistent interpretations, the rules are merely
ambiguous, and we certainly haven't been yelling UNDECIDABLE at every
ambiguity, but rather declaring them to be true or false, as Rule 217,
"Interpreting the Rules", says we should.
If all interpretations are contradictory, then, as I believed when I
made that statement, some part of the rules must take precedence over
some other part; if the rules don't provide for any precedence, then
that's just an ambiguity again.
Therefore, I did in fact have a reasonable interpretation of what I
believed were the rules under which UNDECIDABLE would never be
By the way, UNDECIDABLE is never appropriate.
Gratuitous Arguments by Machiavelli:
I've already made some arguments, and having forgotten
what this case is all about, I can't make any more at the moment.
Judge Wooble's Arguments:
I judge GUILTY. The defendant acknowledged that e was aware of the
"not capable of being accurately described as either false or true"
criterion in Rule 591, and I believe that even the staunchest
supporter of the Law of the Excluded Middle would acknowledge the
existence of statements that don't necessarily have an accurate truth
However, I disagree with the initiator's claim that the circumstances
under which the statement make the statement particularly egregious so
as to warrant a judgment of CHOKEY or EXILE; I believe the defendant
did legitimately believe the judgment of UNDECIDABLE to be
inappropriate in the cases at issue, and that neither eir initiation
of criminal CFJs nor eir erroneous arguments in bringing them were
particularly damaging to the game. I sentence the Ninny to FINE.
Appellant Machiavelli's Arguments:
You appear to have ignored my
reasonable (or so I think) arguments that UNDECIDABLE is never
appropriate. I believe these arguments consisted of the fact that in
the case of ambiguity, there's extremely strong precedent that
UNDECIDABLE is not appropriate, and in the case of contradiction, one
contradictory thing will take precedence over the other--if not by
some explicit precedence clause in the rules, then by rule 217.
I can initiate criminal cases as a member of the PerlNomic
Partnership, which means that I can initiate criminal cases against
judges and members of judicial panels for judging GUILTY and AFFIRM