============================== CFJ 2980 ==============================
ais523 is a player.
Called by Murphy: 20 Mar 2011 20:28:32 GMT
Assigned to omd: 21 Mar 2011 01:59:19 GMT
Judged FALSE by omd: 21 Mar 2011 18:57:19 GMT
Reconsideration requested by Wooble: 21 Mar 2011 19:04:55 GMT
Reconsideration requested by omd: 21 Mar 2011 19:19:14 GMT
Reconsideration requested by G.: 21 Mar 2011 20:34:34 GMT
Assigned to omd: 21 Mar 2011 20:34:34 GMT
Judged TRUE by omd: 23 Mar 2011 16:37:33 GMT
Appealed by ais523: 23 Mar 2011 16:57:28 GMT
Appealed by Machiavelli: 23 Mar 2011 23:40:46 GMT
Appealed by Murphy: 30 Mar 2011 04:20:47 GMT
Appeal 2980a: 30 Mar 2011 04:20:47 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal: 01 Apr 2011 05:23:05 GMT
Assigned to omd: 01 Apr 2011 05:23:05 GMT
Judged TRUE by omd: 04 Apr 2011 01:34:41 GMT
The message in question contained the following statements, labeled
here for ease of reference:
a) I call for judgement on the statement "I register".
b) I do so.
It seems clear that b) refers to "I register", not the entirety of
a), and furthermore indicates clear intent to register (at some point
in that message, even with a) alone being ambiguous as Wooble found
in CFJ 2979).
Judge omd's Arguments:
CFJ 2979 actually ruled on the entire message, not just the first statement:
> The message in which this CFJ was initiated does not
> indicate reasonably unambiguously that ais523 intended to become a
> player at that time.
I disagree, but I'll comply with the precedent. FALSE.
Request for reconsideration by :
> CFJ 2979 actually ruled on the entire message, not just the first statement:
>> The message in which this CFJ was initiated does not
>> indicate reasonably unambiguously that ais523 intended to become a
>> player at that time.
> I disagree, but I'll comply with the precedent. FALSE.
I disagree too; I completely missed the last line of the original
message when rendering my judgment.
Gratuitous Arguments by Roujo:
I support and do so, although I'm not sure how. =P
Appellant ais523's Arguments:
I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 support, on the basis that it doesn't
have any arguments at all. In particular, was the referent of "I do so." too
ambiguous to cause a registration? (Note that the message was in a thread
about a /de/registration; also, if the CFJ calling was part of a quote, rather
than in the message body itself, precedent would be that I would call a
duplicate CFJ, rather than perform an action stated in the CFJ statement
(which is clearly meant to be a statement of fact, rather than an action,
precisely because it's a CFJ statement); the only actual actions there are the
call of the CFJ, and a quote of a deregistration. "ais523 wrote: > I
deregister. // I do so." would clearly be a deregistration. So why is the
message in question so obviously a registration, that it can be judged TRUE
even without arguments?
Judge omd's Arguments:
Here is the entire message:
> On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 14:37 +0000, Alex Smith wrote:
>> I deregister.
> Murphy wrote:
>> *6964 =C2=A01.0 =C2=A0Wooble =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I miss ais523
> I call for judgement on the statement "I register".
> I do so.
As far as I can see, only a moron in a hurry would fail to interpret
"I do so." as referring to "I register." If registration were
performed by announcement, it would certainly be successful.
However, of course, the actual registration criterion is that the
message "indicates" that ais523 "intends to become a player at that
time". The message *unambiguously* indicates that ais523 intended to
*ambiguously* register; e clearly intended that there would be some
probability of em thus becoming a player, and some probability of em
not. Does that count as intending to become a player?
By the precedent of CFJ 2972, it does. TRUE.