============================== CFJ 3406 ==============================
whether that is a CFJ
Called by Roujo: 24 Apr 2014 09:36:02
Assigned to LiberonScien: 28 Apr 2014 05:03:39
LiberonScien recused: 23 May 2014 20:37:38
Assigned to Fool: 23 May 2014 20:37:38
Judged FALSE by Fool: 30 May 2014 13:36:03
Exhibit by Roujo:
I CFJ on whether that is a CFJ. Arguments against: it doesn't
clearly specify a statement. Arguments for: most experienced
players can deduce the statement from context.
Exhibit by G.:
FALSE. It was sent to Discussion.
Exhibit by Fool:
It's too bad prop 7657 could not have resolved first, but, time is
running out and, as per H. Assessor, you guys are lame. Now Sean was
of course legally required to insult you. I, on the other hand, am
insulting you pro bono.
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 23:37 -0400, omd wrote:
> I recuse LiberonScien from CFJ 3406 and assign Fool.
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 1:03 AM, omd wrote:
> > I assign CFJ 3406 to LiberonScien:
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Alex Smith
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23/4/14, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
> >>> Well, it looks like hazing isn't a crime anymore so... I CFJ on
> >>> x1122334455, putting forth tradition as my main argument.
> >>> Also: Welcome! =D
> >> I CFJ on whether that is a CFJ. Arguments against: it doesn't
> >> clearly specify a statement. Arguments for: most experienced
> >> players can deduce the statement from context.
> > (See Rule 591.)
Rule 991 says that CFJs can be initiated by announcement by any
person, "specifying a statement to be inquired into".
Rule 478 says of actions which CAN performed by announcement, that the
person performing them is to specify it "unambiguously and clearly".
CASE I. There are two (or more) actions
a) that were both POSSIBLE for the person to perform,
b) that the statement in question can reasonably be deemed to
be specifying, and
c) that differ from each other in a substantive way.
In which case the statement is ambiguous, and no action is performed.
a) It was POSSIBLE for Alex to initiate a CFJ into (i) "Roujo's above-
quoted attempt successfully initiated a CFJ", or into (ii) "there is a
CFJ corresponding to the above", and there are perhaps other
possibilities along these lines.
b) These are both reasonable readings of "that is a CFJ".
Examples of unreasonable readings of "that is a CFJ" include things
that would be FALSE because "ceci n'est pas une pipe". (And if you
haven't read that book, then I am curious where you heard of Nomic.)
c) These are different, in that perhaps Roujo's attempt succeeded but
the CFJ ceased to exist in the intervening time for some other reason.
Then (i) would be TRUE and (ii) FALSE.
Note that if Alex's attempt failed, then I CANNOT judge this case as
it does not exist. So in assigning a judgement I could simply take
it for granted that Alex's attempt succeeded, and reason from there.
But that would be a cop-out wouldn't it.
No, rather, I deem game custom and common sense to be determinative
here, to the point that it likely did not even occur to Alex or anyone
else that his action might have failed. That would be just too
pedantic, even for Agora. (And that's really saying something.)
Hence my inclusion of clause c), and my judgement that the candidates
for Alex's action are different but not substantively so.
Back to the original question. We can also say that a) it was POSSIBLE
to initiate a CFJ into " is a player", or into "'s attempt
to register succeeded", and b) these are both reasonable readings of
"I CFJ on ", and c) these are different, but not substantively.
Thus "I CFJ on " is not ambiguous or unclear in this sense.
CASE II. The statement can reasonably be deemed to perform only one
action that is POSSIBLE (or any one of a set of POSSIBLE actions which
are all substatively the same), but also deemed to either
a) attempt to perform an IMPOSSIBLE action, or
b) not perform an action, or
What is the difference between an IMPOSSIBLE action and a non-action?
An IMPOSSIBLE action has the form of an action that would be POSSIBLE
but the facts or the rules are such that it isn't. One could for
example attempt to vote on a proposal that is no longer open, or for
which one was not eligible.
A non-action does not even do that. We do not interpret everything in
a public message as an attempt to do something. Generally some of it,
if not most of it, are not trying to do anything (formally). This is
almost always clear from context. We don't interpret Roujo's inclusion
of "Welcome" in his public message as an action. And for an extereme
example, this very message is, in fact, all non-action, except for the
last sentence. Even Agorans will, for the most part, have sensibly
skipped to the end well before reaching this point.
What happens in case IIa is an interesting question. Admittedly this
requires an unusual interpretation of interesting, but one that is
strongly supported by Agoran custom. However, "I CFJ on " does
not qualify. It is POSSIBLE to initiate a CFJ into any statement, the
only question is whether this has the correct form.
On the other hand, in case IIb (or IIc), if we can't tell whether it's
an action or non-action, then the statement is unclear, and no action
We must use some common sense, context, and game custion here. Without
which even Alex's statement, "I CFJ on whether that is a CFJ" is
unclear. "I CFJ on" has to be read as "I initiate a CFJ to inquire
into the following statement: ..." and "that" requires us to locate
"I CFJ on " was preceded by a reference to hazing. Of course,
hazing requires some knowledge of Agoran history which goes beyond
what is usually required. But the message also quoted the message
where the player in question attempt to register. I was aware of
the Agoran history in question so am perhaps not best placed to
say what the hypothetical reasonable person not having the knowledge
would have read into this statement, but it seems reasonable to
suppose the reasonable person would have figured it out, given that e
would have had to figure out "I CFJ on" in the first place.
Thus I hold "I CFJ on " _in this context_ not to be unclear.
That said, the message was sent to the discussion forum rather than a
public forum. Uh, right.... Never mind all that then. FALSE.