Index ← 2413 CFJ 2414 2415 → text
==============================  CFJ 2414  ==============================

    coppro has won at least once

========================================================================

Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  woggle
Judgement:                              FALSE

========================================================================

History:

Called by ais523:                       14 Mar 2009 17:03:48 GMT
Assigned to woggle:                     16 Mar 2009 21:03:05 GMT
Judged FALSE by woggle:                 19 Mar 2009 04:08:07 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

I submit
the message below as arguments on this CfJ, and recommend FALSE due to
them.

On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 16:46 +0000, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 00:53 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > After having carefully considered the consequences of doing so,
> > including the fact that it opens up Agora to multiple easy wins; that it
> > reveals a serious flaw in the rules; and that it allows me to win, for
> > the duration of this message I will fail to interpret the first
> > paragraph of rule 2110 as recommended by section (2) of rule 754.
> Well, that has you legally covered for breaking a SHOULD, I think.
>
> > I subsequently interpret that same paragraph as in the English language,
> > which is that rule 2110 defines a tortoise as a subset of inquiry cases
> > on the possibility or legality of a rule-defined action for which the
> > question of veracity is UNDECIDEABLE. I then notice that, given this
> > interpretation, the word initatiator has no defined meaning in the
> > context. Based on the common use of initiator within the rules, I
> > interpret it as the initator of the action, which in this case can refer
> > only to the win announcement, as it is the only action mentioned.
> I don't believe that this interpretation is possible. The only word
> whose definition is under dispute here is "is", as to whether it means
> the Agoran "is defined as" in this case, or "is the same as" (the
> definition you're using here). Your definition would imply that a
> real-life tortoise was a sort of inquiry CfJ; and it therefore violates
> rule 991 because a real-life tortoise is not a procedure to settle a
> matter of controversy. (Using the same argument twice, and interpreting
> rule 991 so that a CfJ describes a real-life judicial case, fails
> because real-life judicial cases are unfortunately not a sort of
> reptile.) Just because you're complying with rule 754 doesn't
> automatically make the definition comply with all the other rules...
>
> > Furthermore, supported by evidence from multiple sources, I note that
> > the eggs of Galápagos tortoises hatch between December and March. Since
> > the latter weeks of February fall within this range, I claim that, on
> > the balance of probabilities, it is, for all intents and purposes,
> > certain that a tortoise was born between February 15th and February
> > 28th, 2009.
> I actually spent about 10 minutes looking up population estimates of
> tortoises (what's the chance that none of them laid eggs), but it seems
> likely that there is in fact a tortoise between two and four weeks old.
> However, unfortunately none of them are intended to resolve Agoran
> controversies...
>
> > This is a win announcement, announcing that, for reasons specified
> > above, there exists a tortoise that has continuously been a tortoise,
> > for a period no greater than four and no less than four weeks, and as a
> > result I satisfy the Winning Condition of Paradox.
> Fails, you typoed "two" as "four". I believe it would have failed
> anyway, though.
>
> > To meet my obligations to the cleanup procedure for the Winning
> > Condition of Paradox, I submit the following proposal named {Fix 754},
> > Adoption Index 3:
> >
> > ==========================================================================
> > Amend rule 754 by replacing the first instance of {SHOULD} with {SHALL}.
> > ==========================================================================
> Oh no, this really doesn't fix the situation. Don't obligate people to
> interpret a rule a certain way; instead, make it so that that
> interpretation is true. (Incidentally, I've been warning of the dangers
> of applying SHOULD to inanimate objects, interpretations, or pretty much
> anything but actions, for quite a while now, at least on IRC.)
>

========================================================================

Judge woggle's Arguments:

FALSE. I see no reason why I should pay any attention to coppro's
contrived interpretation of R2110, so I will let the rule's definition
of tortoise stand. Consequently, I find the purported win announcement
was incorrect and therefore not a win announcement.

========================================================================