Index ← 2442 CFJ 2443 2444 → text
==============================  CFJ 2443  ==============================

    CFJ 2423 is a tortoise.

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

Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  Yally
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by ais523:                       07 Apr 2009 17:49:49 GMT
Assigned to Yally:                      07 Apr 2009 21:45:48 GMT
Judged FALSE by Yally:                  08 Apr 2009 01:38:36 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

I'm not entirely sure if the CFJ in question counts as a tortoise or
not; the question is to whether it's on "the possibility or legality of
a rule-defined action", which I'm not sure about. (The CFJ was not,
incidentally, intended as a paradox-win attempt.) The attempt to amend
rule 2223 was, at the time, certainly a rule-defined action (defined in
two rules, no less); the question is as to whether a question about
which mechanism was used is a question about its possibility or
legality. Also bear in mind that the question was about something that
actually happened; it's certainly indirectly about the possibility or
legality of an action, but I'm not sure if it's direct enough to count.

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

Caller's Evidence:

CFJ 2423 has the text "Murphy's recent attempt to cause Rule 2223 to
amend itself to read 'This rule intentionally left blank' was using the
mechanism specified in rule 2223, rather than the mechanism specified in
the rule created by proposal 6130.", and has had a judgement of
UNDECIDABLE for over two weeks.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by root:

No.  Whatever the outcome of CFJ 2423, nobody would have disputed the
possibility or legality of the action on its account, only the success
of the manner in which Murphy attempted it.  Since it therefore could
not have provided any answers about the possibility or legality, I
think it unreasonable to consider that to be the subject of the case.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

TRUE would certainly have implied that the action was legal;
the current UNDECIDABLE does not, so the CFJ does have at least some
impact on the success of the action (and therefore the possibility of
performing that action with that phrasing). (Also note that I called the
case as part of a linked group trying to establish whether Murphy's
actions succeeded, and exactly in which way they succeeded if they did.)

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

Judge Yally's Arguments:

FALSE; Rule 2110 states that:

      A tortoise is an inquiry case on the possibility or legality of
      a rule-defined action.

However, CFJ 2423 has determined what has happened, not whether something is
legal or whether something is possible to happen.

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