============================== CFJ 3409 ==============================
CFJ 3408 is assigned to omd.
Called by ais523: 09 May 2014 15:12:11
Assigned to Yally: 09 May 2014 15:28:27
Yally recused: 30 Jun 2014 12:32:16
Assigned to G.: 30 Jun 2014 13:00:13
Judged TRUE by G.: 30 Jun 2014 14:44:03
Exhibit by ais523:
Evidence: the above-quoted message, that has the title "OFF: [Arbitor]
CFJ 3408 assigned to omd", but does not list anything but the text of
the CFJ in the body of the message.
Arguments: I think (this is from memory, I may be wrong) we've decided
that the subject line is sufficient to assign a number to the CFJ, on
the basis that it causes general agreement as to which CFJ the number
refers to. Is it also sufficient to assign a judge? Nothing in the body
contradicts it, but nothing in the body refers to the subject either,
which is normally too low a standard to perform an action by
Exhibit by scshunt:
k Wooble geoffspear at gmail.com 2 May 10 22 Nov 10
Exhibit by omd:
Evidence: The caller's judgement in CFJ 2897:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I'm having problems with the CFJ in question. The problem is that game
> custom and past CFJs give a strong indication that ehird's attempt
> failed; but the rules, to me, give a weak indication that it succeeded,
> and they take precedence. (As far as I can tell, subject lines are sent
> via the fora along with the rest of the message, and the only thing that
> could cause that to /not/ take an action is if it's too ambiguous to
> succeed. Hidden email headers are one thing, where there's ambiguity
> caused by the fact that people might not see the header in question, but
> with a plainly visible header like the subject line, in a situation
> where the subject line is clearly deliberately changed to take a message
> (e.g. because it's a reply to another message and has been deliberately
> edited, like it was in ehird's case), I can't see a rules-based reason
> to disallow it.
> Additionally, I don't see why everyone's annoyed with me for not judging
> this sooner. For one thing, it's II 0 and thus, by definition,
> uninteresting and unimportant. For another thing, CFJ judgements are not
> definitive. A judgement in this matter is entirely useless if it turns
> out to be incorrect. Sure, I could just say TRUE or FALSE with some
> reasonable reasoning (which I did!), but that doesn't mean that the
> verdict is necessarily platonically correct. If you want certainty about
> the gamestate, I suggest you sort it out pragmatically, via urgent
> proposal or ratification or whatever; attempting to deduce the platonic
> gamestate in a situation as balanced as this is fraught with danger, due
> to the chance of getting the wrong result.
Exhibit by Murphy:
Precedent is something like "the subject line may provide context,
provided it doesn't contradict the body". Arguably, for a reply with
subject = an action (particularly one that fulfills a duty) and body =
nothing but quoted text, it makes more sense to interpret "they intended
to do that and it was effective" than "they missed adding to the body
and also changed the subject in a curiously specific but nevertheless
Exhibit by G.:
First, whether it worked or not, it is Bad Form for an Officer. In
general, Don't Do This.
Second, ID Numbers are currently undefined for Judicial Cases, so
this will focus on the case assignment to omd; number assignment
is informal so this "worked" informally.
The "success" of information in a subject line has been found in
the past to depend on the clarity of the message text. Here are
some possible tests of effectiveness:
1. Are there multiple actions that can be inferred? No.
2. Is there a real doubt as to what is intended? No.
3. Is timing an issue? (multiple events in the message). No.
4. Is anything purposefully obfuscated? No.
5. Does the message text infer the type of action that can be
made clear from the subject line? (A CFJ is quoted with the
term CFJ being fairly clear).
All of this points to successful communication.
On the other side, we have:
1. Does the message text alone infer an action took place? No.
Not to get around it, but this is a missing piece that SHOULD be
there. But in balance, the clarity of the overall message is