Index ← 2117 CFJ 2118 2119 → text
==============================  CFJ 2118  ==============================

    A judicial finding has determined that X, for the purposes of R2125
    and R2161, if and only if a CFJ directly inquiring into the veracity
    of either X or not X has a judgment of TRUE or FALSE respectively.


Caller:                                 Wooble

Judge:                                  Quazie

Judge:                                  BobTHJ

Judge:                                  ais523

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by Wooble:                       04 Aug 2008 13:01:43 GMT
Assigned to Quazie:                     09 Aug 2008 14:32:43 GMT
Quazie recused:                         23 Aug 2008 16:44:41 GMT
Assigned to BobTHJ:                     26 Aug 2008 23:30:10 GMT
BobTHJ recused:                         27 Aug 2008 14:41:31 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     08 Sep 2008 01:32:44 GMT
ais523 recused:                         08 Sep 2008 18:15:54 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         14 Sep 2008 01:29:41 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     15 Sep 2008 06:20:46 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

"judicial finding" is not defined by the rules.  However,
the best interests of the game and common sense dictate that such a
finding should not include a judge's statement that e "finds" X in the
reasoning behind a judgment completely unrelated to X, but rather an
appealable direct judgment into the veracity of X.


Gratuitous Arguments by Machiavelli:

Consider what would happen if, in judging a criminal case, a judge
said, "The defendant has stated that e has no intention to follow this
rule in the future. Since ignoring this rule forever is a very serious
offense, I sentence em to EXILE for 60 days; this sentence covers not
only this offense but any future time the defendant breaches this
rule. Therefore, e CANNOT be punished for violating it again."


Judge G.'s Arguments:

CFJ 1690 set out a principle that an extended set of indirect inferences
is insufficient to result in a direct judicial finding in cases where the
Rules require one.  In that example, a judgement finding or challenge Y
that requires several steps of inference to get to X (e.g. Y -> P -> Q -> X)
does not sufficiently constitute a judicial finding of X.

However, this CFJ statement is too strict in the other direction.  For
example, if X is inarguably and clearly a member of set P, and a judicial
finding is clear that all members of set P are regulated, this "single step"
inference would satisfy a finding of X.  In essence, just as in determining
clarity of communication, the directness of the inference must be
determined on a case-by-case basis.

While this court generally errs in the direction of this CFJ being true
in *most* cases, the "if and only if" statement in conjunction with the
broad and hypothetical nature of this CFJ statement would even disallow
the most strong and obvious inferences; if only to prevent these strong
and obvious inferences from failing due to strict technicality, this court
finds FALSE.