============================== CFJ 3245 ==============================
CfJ 3212 is a turtle
Called by Bucky: 07 Jul 2012 05:58:50 GMT
Assigned to G.: 16 Jul 2012 06:29:25 GMT
Judged TRUE by G.: 18 Jul 2012 19:50:41 GMT
hypothetical does not arise from the CfJ itself, but rather from
another (hypothetical) statement that happens to be identical to the
============================== CFJ 3212 ==============================
is illegal for a player to announce intent to use Ratification Without
Objection to ratify a document whose contents are identical to this
sentence, without also specifying a reason for ratifying it.
(and more broadly the entirety of the case history archived at
and with this message also relevant:
----- Original Message -----
From: Sean Hunt
Sent: Friday, July 6, 2012 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: BUS: Declaration of Victory
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:39 PM, John Smith wrote:
> Admitted. Trying again.
I, Bucky, satisfy the Victory Condition of Paradox (on CfJ 3212) while
also not satisfying any Losing Conditions. (This is a Victory
CoE: No you do not. The hypothetical is arising out of the case itself.
Machiavelli satisfies the Victory Condition of Paradox (on CfJ 3220)
while also not satisfying any Losing Conditions. (This is a Victory
CoE: No e does not. The hypothetical is arising out of the case itself.
Judge G.'s Arguments:
To qualify as a turtle, a CFJ must be about:
"the possibility or legality of a rule-defined action (actual or
hypothetical, but not arising from that case itself...)"
Now, technically, many hypothetical examples wouldn't arise until a
case brought them up. This is a triviality; it benefits the game to
allow hypothetical conditions to be raised without going through the
recordkeeping burden of setting them up, and it is clearly the purpose
of the above clause to allow hypothetical situations to be considered.
The test for whether a hypothetical situation is independent of the CFJ
is this: *could* this hypothetical situation be set up in actuality,
*without* the CFJ, and then a CFJ be called later to ask if the actual
situation was UNDECIDABLE, and get the same result for substantially
the same arguments? If so, then the situation is sufficiently decoupled
from the CFJ, and any self-referential requirement of the CFJ, so as to
"not arise from the case itself".
So, here's the situation in CFJ 3212, decoupled:
Player A publishes the following statement 1:
It is illegal for a player to announce intent to use Ratification
Without Objection to ratify a document whose contents are
identical to this sentence, without also specifying a reason for
Player A then publishes statement 2:
I announce my intent to ratify statement 1, without objection.
Player X (could be A) then publishes:
Inquiry CFJ: Player A violated Rule 2202 in announcing intent to
ratify statement 1 in statement 2.
If this latter CFJ would be a turtle (i.e. can be judged UNDECIDABLE
for substantially the same reasons as CFJ 3212), then CFJ 3212 is also
While I have some disquiet with the results of CFJ 3212 (and would
generally support the different decision given by Judge Machiavelli), I
find that the decoupled CFJ is substantially the same; that is, the
unappealed (in the winning time frame) reasons given by Judge FKA441344
would lead to UNDECIDABLE in the above case for substantially the same
reasons as given in CFJ 3212. Therefore, the original case discusses a
hypothetical that, can be reasonably said, does not arise from the case
itself, and is a turtle.