Index ← 2178 CFJ 2179 2180 → text
==============================  CFJ 2179  ==============================

    The message sent by "" on "Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:16:23
    +0000" (see evidence 1) was successful in initiating a CFJ.


Caller:                                 Sir Toby

Judge:                                  omd

Judge:                                  woggle
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by Sir Toby:                     23 Sep 2008 19:17:32 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        28 Sep 2008 21:54:30 GMT
omd recused:                            30 Sep 2008 15:53:17 GMT
Assigned to woggle:                     02 Oct 2008 06:01:16 GMT
Judged TRUE by woggle:                  02 Oct 2008 08:26:04 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

I argue for a FALSE judgement in this case. The statement in the message
is clearly an inquiry case. Rule 591 (see evidence 2) governs inquiry
cases. In Rule 591, we see that, "the initiator is unqualified to be
assigned as judge of the case."

The message in question clearly does not indicate who sent the message.
Without knowing who sent the message, there is no way to ensure that the
initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. For all we
know, Sir Toby was the sender of the message. Since he was assigned as
judge of the resulting CFJ, it is possible that he was illegally
assigned as judge to that CFJ.


Caller's Evidence:

From: invalid invalid 
Subject: BUS: A CFJ
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:16:23 +0000

I call for judgement on the following issue:
I submitted a proposal in my recent post

-- Anonymous

Retrieved from:

Rule 591/26 (Power=1.7)
Inquiry Cases

      There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.
      An inquiry case's purpose is to determine the veracity of a
      particular statement.  An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any
      first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement
      to be inquired into.  (Including a yes/no question is equivalent
      to including a statement that the answer to that question is
      yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the
      judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.)

      The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the
      case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one
      person from assignment as judge of the case.

      An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is
      always applicable.  The valid judgements for this question are:

      * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and
        logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated

      * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically
        true at the time the inquiry case was initiated

      * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically
        undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately
        described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry
        case was initiated

      * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at
        the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the

      * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or
        too vague, or if the information available to the judge is
        insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and
        UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as
        to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute
        insufficiency of information for this purpose

      The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the
      reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play
      (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the
      veracity of the statement.  The Rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to
      annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case


Gratuitous Arguments by Sir Toby:

I have issued one CFJ regarding whether or not the CFJ in question was
even initiated and I intend to issue another CFJ regarding the legality
of assigning someone to judge the CFJ. I issued a judgement to the CFJ
in question because I am obligated to do so under the rules, and I
wanted to make sure I fulfilled my duty in the event that it is ruled
that the CFJ was indeed initiated and I was legally assigned to judge it.

I will neither confirm nor deny that I sent any of the messages from


Judge woggle's Arguments:

I judge TRUE. Just because finding a judge for a CFJ or knowing that
it has a judge is difficult or impossible has no bearing on whether or
not it is successfully initiated.