============================== CFJ 3000 ==============================
In general, if a purported action by announcement is accompanied by
a disclaimer equivalent to "this may be ineffective", without
indicating why it may be ineffective, then the action is ineffective
due to ambiguity.
Called by Murphy: 19 Apr 2011 00:58:17 GMT
Assigned to scshunt: 19 Apr 2011 07:03:37 GMT
scshunt recused: 15 May 2011 22:35:41 GMT
Assigned to omd: 15 May 2011 23:22:58 GMT
Judged FALSE by omd: 20 May 2011 16:19:35 GMT
Consider this spectrum of disclaimers attached to "I do X":
a) I don't.
b) Maybe I don't.
c) This fails.
d) Maybe this fails.
e) This (fails / may fail) if (specific condition).
f) This may fail for some reason I haven't thought of.
In general, "I don't" introduces sufficient ambiguity. I believe
that introducing the /possibility/ of "I don't" also introduces
sufficient ambiguity. I believe that the first four disclaimers
introduce this possibility, while the last two do not.
Rule 478, relevant excerpt:
Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously
and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
I'd hesitate to throw out any of b-d. "This fails", even without
further explanation, could be (and probably has been) used as a
courtesy when one is legally required to attempt an action which is
blocked by something else. Or maybe it's added for flavor/challenge
when a specific scam attempt wouldn't work for a withheld reason.
I think in general that claiming something "fails" (as opposed to
claiming something is "false") is a common Agoran usage which means
"I try to do this but something else most likely blocks it. But if
I'm wrong about the block, I'm still formally attempting it and so
it should work."
Saying "swing and a miss" is different than saying "no swing".
Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
In addition to 2069, there's also CFJ 2830,
which cites 2069 but, as far as I can see, contradicts its precedent
(unless there is some reason to believe that awarding a Ribbon was a
more "truth-based action" than calling a CFJ).
Judge omd's Arguments:
Since an "action statement" states that the performer is performing
the action, "This may be ineffective." is equivalent to "This
statement might be false." The precedent of 2069 etc. is that some
actions, including filing a CFJ, can be performed with the latter type
of disclaimer, so FALSE.
(I don't think that whole precedent chain makes much sense-- it's
based on "everyone sorta agrees that CFJ 1971 exists", not any actual
reasoning. But there you go.)