Index ← 2717 CFJ 2718 2719 → text
==============================  CFJ 2718  ==============================

    At no point in time between the moment this CFJ is assigned to a
    judge, and the next moment at which either rule 2215 is repealed,
    amended, or otherwise fails to be enforceable with its current
    meaning, will it be legal for the judge of this CFJ to publically
    make an undisclaimed statement with the same meaning as this one
    (i.e. replacing 'the judge of this CFJ' with the actual judge,


Caller:                                 ais523
Barred:                                 ə

Judge:                                  BobTHJ

Judge:                                  scshunt
Judgement:                              UNDETERMINED



Called by ais523:                       08 Oct 2009 16:37:05 GMT
Assigned to BobTHJ:                     14 Oct 2009 22:43:36 GMT
BobTHJ recused:                         22 Oct 2009 14:54:37 GMT
Assigned to scshunt:                    25 Oct 2009 16:26:17 GMT
Judged UNDETERMINED by scshunt:         25 Oct 2009 17:26:55 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

Due to rule 2215, the statement is equivalent to, for the time period in
question, "The judge of this CFJ does not believe that reasonably
believe that this statement is true." Clearly, therefore, the judge of
the CFJ could not believe that that statement were true without being
unaware of eir own beliefs, which would be a strange belief to have.
Therefore, the judge of this CFJ cannot believe that the statement in
question is true.

The judge of this CFJ also cannot believe that the statement is false,
unless e also simultaneously believes that e will at some point change
eir mind. The argument above shows that e cannot change eir mind (I
believe that the judge of this case will likely be a logical human being
capable of reasoning, and will see the arguments above); and rule 2215
will almost certainly be amended at some point, thus presenting a
deadline for the judge to change eir mind. (The CFJ works, though, even
if it isn't.)

In other words, I have constructed what is, for the judge of the CFJ in
question, an undecidable situation. (This is by analogy with Gödel's
incompleteness theorem; in contrast to the rather boring Epimenides
paradoxes that people try from time to time, it does not create a
paradox, but rather a statement that a particular person cannot decide
is either true or false.)

Note that this CFJ is not UNDETERMINED (all relevant information has
been given, and from then on it's purely logic), IRRELEVANT (as the
legality of a potential action is necessarily relevant to the game,
because it can aid people in determining whether to take the action or
not), or MALFORMED (the CFJ statement is indeed a statement).


Caller's Evidence:

(from rule 2215):
      A person SHALL NOT make a public statement on a matter relevant
      to the rules unless e reasonably believes that it is true (or,
      in the case of a public statement that one performs an action,
      that is effective).


Judge scshunt's Arguments:

I judge UNDETERMINED on the basis that there might be other sequences of
events affecting things, such as the judge being an entity that ceases
to be a person after being assigned.