Index ← 3504 CFJ 3505 3506 → text
==============================  CFJ 3505  ==============================

      Can this statement have a Judge?


Caller:                      CuddleBeam

Judge:                       Quazie
Judgement:                   TRUE



Called by CuddleBeam:         21 May 2017
Assiged to Quazie:            21 May 2017
Judged TRUE by Quazie:        24 May 2017


Caller's Evidence:
(message included with CFJ call)

> I also opt to bar one person from such procedure. That person is the
> person who would successfully become the first Judge of the Call for
> Judgement submitted by this message.


Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

My own current understanding is that the attempt to bar the judge
fails because it's a conditional action based on information that will
only be available in the future; presumably, the CFJ verdict might end
up confirming or denying this understanding.


Gratuitous Arguments by G.

We used to explicitly say in the Rules that True/False judgements were 
equivalent to Yes/No if the statement was phrased as a yes/no question.
We repealed that explicit text, but there's some ounce of possibility
that precedent would allow it.

The most recent CFJ phrased that way is CFJ 3374, but that was when
the yes/no text was in the rule.


Judge's Arguments:

First: Past rules allow for YES/NO questions to be judged TRUE/FALSE
with TRUE meaning YES and FALSE meaning NO, and I will re-establish that
tradition as a new judicial precedent within this judgment.  If there is
issue with this interpretation, I will be happy to reconsider as
DISMISS, but I will follow with the rest of my judgment.

Next: The CFJ in question asks "Can this statement have a Judge?".  I
find this CFJ to be trivially TRUE and judge it as such.  Even giving
the interesting barring attempt (Which I'll discuss shortly) only two
realities exist:
Reality One: I am the judge of this CFJ, and if this is true then the
barring attempt failed.
Reality Two: I am not the judge of this CFJ, but once thats established
ais523 will simply assign a new judge, and E will likely agree with my
statement that e is the judge of the CFJ.

In either reality there eventually is a judge for this CFJ, and thus the
CFJ is TRUE (Meaning YES to the yes/no question presented).

To be honest, I could end the judgment here.  CuddleBeam should've CFJed
on "A player, other than CuddleBeam, is barred on this CFJ".  That
would've required someone to judge if the barring worked.  I note to
CuddleBeam: Be more careful of your wording next time. I'm unsure if
your $2.99 Super CFJs are all their cracked up to be if I feel
comfortable not judging the question you seemed to intend to raise. But,
I've got an opinion on the matter, and I believe it's controversial, and
I've got some words to say.

So... let's get into the question at hand:

Was anyone barred from judging this CFJ?

It seems like ais523 didn't attempt to assign anyone else first (E gave
no indication that E did so, and in fact noted that e didn't believe e
had to).
  (My own current understanding
  is that the attempt to bar the judge fails because it's a conditional
  action based on information that will only be available in the future;
  presumably, the CFJ verdict might end up confirming or denying this

The thing is, I don't see it that way.

Conditional activities are defined, in a general way, by R1023
  (c) If a regulated value, or the value of a conditional, or a
    value otherwise required to determine the outcome of a
    regulated action, CANNOT be reasonably determined (without
    circularity or paradox) from information reasonably
    available, or if it alternates instantaneously and
    indefinitely between values, then the value is considered to
    be Indeterminate, otherwise it is Determinate.

The burden here is reasonability - is it reasonable to allow an
conditional activity to happen?

I agree, there's a long standing tradition (Potentially established/
enforced through CFJ 3381 or CFJ 2926, this information gathering is
left up to the reader) that future conditional actions aren't valid, and
I will uphold that logic for most cases.

I agree that it's wrong for the game to allow an action to resolve at an
arbitrary date in the future. (e.g. "I give  1 shiny if they
send a photo of a sloth via a public forum." should not actually send
the Sloth-Sender a shiny.  That requires an officer (or in simpler cases
just the playerbase) to keep track of an action for an indeterminate
amount of time which is unreasonable.)

I agree that it's wrong and bad for the game to make future conditional
action's be allowable with a pre-set arbitrary resolution event and
time. (e.g. "I give  1 shiny if, within the next week, they send
out a message with unicode characters in it".  Non-rule defined
deadlines are similarly unreasonable, as they non-consensually place an
obligation on someone else to track the conditional to ensure success of
a future activity.) (e.g. "When the promotor distributes proposal titled 
'Beef, it's what's for dinner!' I vote FOR" is invalid for similar
reasons.  It isn't reasonable for the Assesor to start tracking votes
until the voting period begins.  Once again, a non-rule obligation.)

But in this case, the barring in question, I just don't see any of that

Let's look at the rule shall we?

  Rule 991/17 (Power=2)
  Calls for Judgement

        Any person (the initiator) can initiate a Call for Judgement
        (CFJ, syn. Judicial Case) by announcement, specifying a
        statement to be inquired into.  E may optionally bar one person
        from the case.

        At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or
        assigned exactly one judgement.

        The Arbitor is an office, responsible for the administration of
        justice in a manner that is fair for emself, if not for the rest
        of Agora.

        When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any
        player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so within a
        week.  The players eligible to be assigned as judge are all
        players except the initiator and the person barred (if any).
        The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all
        interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.
        If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to
        judge that CFJ CAN assign it to emself Without 3 Objections.

In my reading of the rule, the barring isn't resolved until a judge is
assigned, thus it's not unreasonable to ask the Arbitor to resolve a
conditional at that time.

The conditional itself must be reasonable though.  Is it reasonable to
ask the Arbitor to know who e will assign to a case?  Yes, that sounds
reasonable to me, as it's eir job to assign judges to cases.

Additionally my interpretation of the barring is 'I bar the first
eligible Player that is attempted to be assigned to this case', as any
eligible judge would be successfully assigned. It seems reasonable to
take this reasonable interpretation of the barring.

The Arbitor isn't prescribed an exact method to eir madness, they can
assign judges however they like, BUT it does state:
  The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all
  interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.
and thus there must be some amount of method to the madness, and thus it
seems even more reasonable to have the Arbitor bar the first judge e was
intending to assign to the case.

I am uncertain what would've happened if the CFJ had remained unassigned
and someone had tried to assign Without 3 Objections - but thankfully I
don't have to have an opinion on that.  As a result I wont go deeply
into it, but perhaps the first attempt at that would fail - and so it
would take two attempts to assign a judge?  I'm unsure, and wont discuss
the matter further.

To Summarize: Though I have judged this CFJ, I believe that I was
ineligible to be assigned to the CFJ by the reasonableness of the
barring attempt.  A reasonableness that comes from the fact that the
barring itself isn't resolved until judge assignment, and all the
information was at hand at that time, and thus no unreasonable
obligations were placed on the Arbitor.

If the barring attempt was sufficiently unreasonable ("I bar whoever
walked the most steps on the day this CFJ is assigned a judge") then I
would also state it couldn't be a proper barring attempt, but
CuddleBeams barring seems reasonable enough to me.