============================== CFJ 3022 ==============================
scshunt gained points for CFJ 3011.
Called by Walker: 05 May 2011 21:21:24 GMT
Assigned to ais523: 19 May 2011 02:47:30 GMT
ais523 recused: 27 May 2011 11:48:15 GMT
Assigned to omd: 16 Jun 2011 01:35:34 GMT
Judged FALSE by omd: 16 Jun 2011 04:27:05 GMT
On 5 May 2011 21:43, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 05/05/11 11:35, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> On 04/28/11 06:42, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3011
>>> ============================== CFJ 3011 ==============================
>>> I can cash a promise made in the same message in which this CFJ
>>> was called.
>> The condition is that 'this condition is false'. This is an instance of
>> the liar's paradox; the statement is a self-contradiction. We do not
>> accept the law of the excluded middle here in Agora (see the existence
>> of the UNDECIDEABLE judgment), and thus it is the case that the
>> condition is neither true nor false. Since the promise can only be
>> cashed if its conditions are true, FALSE.
> I transfer omd's promise from the Tree and cash it, congratulating myself.
Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
At the time scshunt judged CFJ 3011, e had not cashed the promise,
so its time limit did not apply to em. Interpreting that the
promise retroactively qualified em for the point award is too much
of a stretch, though it might be interpreted that the promise
applied/applies to all judges who could cash it.
Gratuitous Evidence by Murphy:
Message creating the promise in question:
Timing of subsequent relevant actions (all UTC):
Thu 28 Apr 13:42:02 scshunt is assigned to CFJ 3011
Thu 5 May 18:35:02 scshunt judges CFJ 3011
Thu 5 May 18:36:30 scshunt judges CFJ 3007
Thu 5 May 20:43:57 scshunt cashes the promise
Judge omd's Arguments:
In this case, I've changed my mind:
(1) "within any time limits for doing so" means "within whatever time
limits for doing so exist", thus "within all time limits for doing
so", not "within any time limit for doing so".
(2) Furthermore, a time limit, like any requirement, must exist in the
context of some penalty or system of denoting failure, i.e. a system
of governance. Whatever the penalty is-- perhaps violation of a
real-life contract, perhaps someone politely pointing out the limit
has been violated or him shooting me-- it essentially resembles an
external jurisdiction, and Agora generally ignores matters of external
(3) But even if my promise is considered to assume Agora's
jurisdiction (by analogy with promises' ability to impose certain
obligations, I suppose, as precedent states that the ability to act on
behalf is a type of obligation), by CFJ 2361, the withholding of the
promise's reward for not judging a case within a year is not
considered a penalty because it isn't "certain" that a judge would
"get it anyway"; someone else might cash the promise in the meantime,
or the judge might not want it. Thus, the time limit for obtaining
the reward is not considered a time limit for judging.
(4) As far as I know, the weakest effect we have ever considered a
penalty is my attempt to register on my birthday being judged
ineffective; and that was a R101 case, where tradition is generally to
interpret the rule as broadly as possible, whereas the author of Judge
Points clearly did not intend it to apply to contracts. The lack of a
faceless, template note of congratulation is a much weaker effect, and
would not be considered a penalty in any case.