Index ← 3350 CFJ 3351 3352 → text
==============================  CFJ 3351  ==============================

    monkey purple dishwasher


Caller:                                 Bucky

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              IRRELEVANT



Called by Bucky:                        25 Jun 2013 18:53:34 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         27 Jun 2013 17:27:44 GMT
Judged IRRELEVANT by G.:                27 Jun 2013 18:24:19 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

Because it's a SHOULD requirement, a CfJ on a block of text that doesn't
(directly) represent the statement to be inquired into is still a valid CfJ,
and by definition still has a statement.  This leaves open the question of
what the statement of inquiry actually is in such cases.  It's reasonable for
the CotC or the judge to infer the actual statement from context such as the
nature of the supporting arguments and evidence.  MALFORMED is appropriate in
such cases, but other judgments might also be appropriate depending on the


Caller's Evidence:

(Rule 591): Any first-class person CAN initiate an inquiry case by
announcement, specifying a block of text which SHOULD represent a statement to
be inquired into.


Judge G.'s Arguments:

First, to get this out of the way, the judgement, by long tradition,
applies to an explicit statement.  There are many cases where the judge
says "I know the Caller was *trying* to ask X, but unfortunately due to
some minor grammar technicality, e actually asked Y."  In this case, the
generally appropriate judgement is to judge Y (on the technicality), so
(for example) anyone looking (e.g. in the cotc database) at statement/
judgement pairs sees a logical and quick connection.

So to that end, I judge this case IRRELEVANT, and suggest that the next
time such a random statement is needed, this be used as guidance:

Some more words are needed though, I think.  The Caller's arguments,
reveal some confusion over what it means in Agora to judge something.

In other words: don't like a judgement?  Call the same statement again.
And again.  And again.  Nothing's stopping you.  The success of a
judgement is not that it comes to the "right" result for a statement,
but that it is sufficient to generally end the confusion over the
fundamental issues at hand, and by general consensus move on with the
game.  (as witnessed recently, a simple TRUE/FALSE with no arguments is
much more prone to appeal).

To this end, while it is the Judge's proper duty to answer the exact
question asked, each judge has a *HIGHER* duty, enshrined in R101, to
act to give all parties "the reasonable expectation that the controversy
will thereby be resolved" through the parties' invokation.  Note that
the emphasis is to resolve any surrounding controversy, not avoid the
whole controversy due to a technicality.

To do so, each Judge SHOULD provide guidelines for the boundaries of
any ruling, and in doing so, generally limit re-calls of substantially
the same matter.  And Stare Decisis, as we use it, does not distinguish
the quality of the contained argument solely based on whether a
technical question is answered, but also on how the boundaries of each
judgement extrapolate to new cases to answer and truly address the

To put in in a nutshell, the Judgement should be appropriate to the
exact statement, but the Arguments, and therefore the precedent set for
resolving the underlying controversy and extrapolating to future cases,
can be sensitive to context (the test of whether a Judge goes too
far in extrapolation is through the appeals).  Sure, a judge can duck
the whole thing by deciding on the technicality and nothing else
(that's eir prerogative), but doing so is not always best for the
judgement and/or the game.

To that end, a judge can apply arguments to arguments even if e's
forced to apply judgement to statement, and those arguments should
have a reasonable weight of precedence inasmuch as they addresses
underlying controversies.

Or at least I hope a judge can, because I've just done so.

PS.  On IRRELEVANT versus MALFORMED:  Some recent precedents (e.g. the
posting of a date string as a CFJ statement) suggest that it can be
reasonable to interpret bare noun phrases as "Is this [noun phrase]?"
I am doing that to say that I can't see how this particular noun
phrase is relevant to Agoran rule, so it's an irrelevant phrase.