Index ← 2248 CFJ 2249 2250 → text
==============================  CFJ 2249  ==============================

    There is an asset known as the Terre Haute


Caller:                                 Machiavelli

Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by Machiavelli:                  31 Oct 2008 02:01:35 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     08 Nov 2008 08:49:13 GMT
Judged TRUE by ais523:                  14 Nov 2008 18:58:00 GMT


Caller's Evidence:

I agree to the following: {For the purposes of this contract, the
Terre Haute is the name of the asset owned by Rochelle O'Shea, or
Santa Claus if Rochelle O'Shea does not own exactly one asset. The
Terre Haute is an asset whose owner defaults to the entity that last
owned it. Anyone CAN award the Terre Haute to anything by
announcement. Warrigal can terminate this pledge by announcement.}

Since Rochelle O'Shea does not own any assets (she is a fictional
character), the Terre Haute is Santa Claus, who does not exist, so the
contract creates it as an asset. I award the Terre Haute to Rochelle
O'Shea. This causes it to become "the Terre Haute", which does exist,
causing it to cease to be an asset, causing Rochelle O'Shea to lose
it, causing it to revert to Santa Claus, causing it to cease to exist
independently, causing it to become an asset again, causing it to
become "the Terre Haute", and so on forever.


Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

At least one real person named Rochelle O'Shea appears to exist (try a
Google search), making the contract's reference ambiguous rather than
nonexistent (as opposed to the criminal case against Hillary Rodham
Clinton, where the intended target was reasonably obvious).


Gratuitous Arguments by Machiavelli:

I did state that Rochelle O'Shea is a fictional
character, and it is highly doubtful that there is any other fictional
Rochelle O'Shea as well-known as that from Newshounds. It's likely
that the fictional Rochelle O'Shea is more well-known than the real


Judge ais523's Arguments:

Let's see what happened here. No Rochelle O'Shea owned at least one
asset when the contract was created, so it defined "the Terre Haute" as
"Santa Claus"; it also defines it as an asset. There is no contradiction
yet, we have an asset called Santa Claus, also known as the Terre Haute,
owned by the L&FD (as the contract's definition of its owner is

Then Warrigal awarded Santa Claus to Rochelle O'Shea. Santa Claus, that
is the Terre Haute, is now the only asset owned by Rochelle O'Shea;
therefore, the Terre Haute is still an abbreviation for Santa Claus,
according to the first paragraph of the contract. So nothing's changed
but Santa Claus's owner, and there is still no contradiction. (In
particular, there is no infinite loop here; awarding Santa Claus to
Rochelle O'Shea doesn't suddenly cause it to cease existing, especially
as the former contract has a sustaining definition here. It's been
called the Terre Haute all along, in addition to being Santa Claus; that
doesn't cause it to cease being an asset when its owner changes. The
definition of the Terre Haute is now Santa Claus if Rochelle O'Shea does
not own exactly one asset, and her only asset (i.e. Santa Claus) if it
does; no contradiction, no paradox, just a rather silly definition which
comes to the same thing both ways.)

So in other words, trivially TRUE at the time the CFJ was called. (The
backing document has since ceased to exist, so the CFJ would have been
false if it were called today.)