Index ← 2827 CFJ 2828 2829 → text
==============================  CFJ 2828  ==============================

    It is POSSIBLE for the CotC to assign a judge to a CFJ, other than
    this one, which has exactly this statement

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

Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by ais523:                       11 Aug 2010 15:46:13 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         13 Aug 2010 08:53:37 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     13 Aug 2010 16:26:29 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

The question is as to whether I can publish a message whilst publishing
a message. I clearly haven't finished publishing this message yet at its
second sentence, so that should publish the message again. (Test 1: Is
it possible to publish a message via reference, especially if the entire
content of the message to publish is present in the same email? The
common TTttPF behaviour implies it is.) Assuming that that works, it
presumably creates a second CFJ. The next problem is to determine the
relative timings of the CFJs; do they happen simultaneously, or one
after the other? If the latter, which comes first? Can the CotC assign a
judge to a CFJ /as/ it's being created? (Admittedly, e'd have to take
actions interspersed with mine; it would be entirely possible in theory,
though, if I were the CotC at the time.) (Test 2: If there are two CFJs,
are the correct judgements FALSE/FALSE, FALSE/TRUE, or TRUE/TRUE?) The
remaining question is as to whether the email gets published an infinite
number of times, and thus creates five CFJs; I think this is very
unlikely though, both because it would be too much of a stretch to do
with one abbreviation (or any other way), and because it's clearly
taking the same action twice when the action says "if I have not already
done so"; this is probably evidence in favour for the actions in the
referenced message happening after the publication of the original
message, rather than during.

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

Caller's Evidence:

I call for judgement on the statement "It is POSSIBLE for the CotC to
assign a judge to a CFJ, other than this one, which has exactly this
statement". Then if I have not already done so, I publish a copy of the
text of this email.

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

Judge G.'s Arguments:

This is Yet Another Administrative Convenience Confused for Reality
(YACCR) case.  By R478, the only way to actually perform the act of
publishing a message is to hit the send key or otherwise propagate
previously-composed text outside of one's technical domain of control
(with some modifications for the "via" and other mechanical delivery
considerations - I won't quote the case law that starts with CFJ 866).

Since the publishing is done by this technical (actual) act, terms like
"I hereby announce" or "I hereby publish" or "I state" are simply handy
delimiters/framing devices or color for focusing relevant content.  In
other words, syntactic sugar that is generally without legal effect.
It also means that saying "I hereby publish [external reference] is not
the same thing as publishing the content of the external reference.

We generally accept that such framing conveniences can have some minor
effects of redirection/quoting within the same message, for example that
a sender can reorder the interpretation of messages.  For example "I
submit the following proposal, then set its AI to 3 and its chamber to
green: [proposal text]" is taken to reorder the AI and chamber setting
to being after the publication of the proposal text.  Or saying "I send
the following previous quote to the PF" or the accepted shorthand TTPF
works, provided the whole quote is actually published inside the framing
device.

Like all such conveniences, they function on common sense.  As soon as
they are used to cause explicit contradictions, infinite loops, or the
like, they are simply thrown out and we revert to the strict
interpretation of publication via the sending itself being interpreted
in established linear (common English) order.  Therefore, the recursive
"I hereby publish" says it did, but didn't.

I know, boring of me.  Sorry.  FALSE.

Also, ALL OF AGORA SHOULD NOTE AND REMEMBER the last sentence of Judge
Murphy's arguments in CFJ 2737.  This is an excellent and concise
statement that is specifically relevant here, but should be brought
forward as a strong general precedent for this type of thing.

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