============================== CFJ 3296 ==============================
At the time that I judged CFJ 3293 IRRELEVANT, the judgement of
IRRELEVANT was appropriate.
Called by Machiavelli: 11 Feb 2013 17:32:56 GMT
Assigned to woggle: 15 Feb 2013 22:04:38 GMT
Judged TRUE by woggle: 15 Feb 2013 23:00:46 GMT
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2013, Tanner Swett wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Sean Hunt
>> > Inquiries are judged based on the game state when they are called, this
>> > inappropriate.
>> That is not entirely true. Rule 591 "Inquiry Cases" states that valid
>> judgements are "based on the truth or falsity of the statement at the
>> time the inquiry case was initiated". However, only the judgements of
>> FALSE, TRUE, and UNDECIDABLE actually refer to the truth or falsity of
>> the statement. The judgement of IRRELEVANT uses the present tense, so
>> whether or not it is appropriate depends on the relevance of the
>> statement at the present time, not at the time that the case was
>> called. Therefore, IRRELEVANT is an appropriate judgement.
> The phrasing of the IRRELEVANT clause is in a subordinate clause to the
> overreaching statement of timing in R591, so it is far more reasonable
> to go with the actual wording than a minor grammatical inconsistency.
> I support the request for reconsideration. -G.
As I see it, there is no inconsistency here. Truth values are
evaluated at the time the inquiry case was initiated, and everything
else is evaluated at the time the inquiry case is judged; that is what
the rules say, and nothing in the rules contradicts this. In my
opinion, common sense also agrees with this interpretation: the
relevance of the statement at the time the case was initiated is less
important than the relevance of the statement at the time the case is
Judge woggle's Arguments:
I judge CFJ 3296 TRUE. The truth of the statement in question at the time the
case was initiated had ceased to be relevant due to the repeal of R2386.
Although a judgment of IRRELEVANT was contrary to game custom, the R591's test
of relevance is at the time of judgment and not at the time of the initiation
of the case. The requirements to evaluate statements at the time of initiation
is limited to their truth values.
G. suggests that we should read these as also applying to the test of
relevance, but the text of the rule is unambiguous, including, e.g.,
consistent use of "was" when talking about truth values and "is" when talking
about relevance or comprehensibility. Additionally, the option to apply
IRRELEVANT in cases where a statement's veracity "can be trivially determined
from the outcome of another (possibly still undecided) judicial case that was
not itself judged IRRELEVANT" would be substantially less useful if it were
limited to outcomes at the time of the initiation of the inquiry case.