Index ← 3525 CFJ 3526 3527 → text
==============================  CFJ 3526  ==============================

      CFJ 3509 has no judgement.

========================================================================

Caller:                       V.J Rada 
Barred:                       CuddleBeam

Judge:                        o
Judgement:                    TRUE

========================================================================

History:

Called by V.J Rada:           13 Jun 2017           
Assigned to o:                14 Jun 2017
Judged TRUE by o:             15 Jun 2017

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

There are three possibilities. 1: The statement is TRUE. The DISMISS
judgement is invalid as overridden by him agreeing to reconsider. The
later judgement is invalid as a judgement for a different statement.
NOTE: If the statement is TRUE, the CFJ has been open for over 7 days
and can be reassigned wink wink nudge nudge put me in coach. 2: The
statement is FALSE because the latter judgement is valid, even if it
refers to a different CFJ. 3: The statement is FALSE because the earlier
judgement is valid. Cuddlebeam agreed to reconsider it, but on June 10
again refused to judge it. This should be taken as a refusal to
reconsider. Thus, the DISMISS judgement is valid.

========================================================================

Caller's Evidence:

This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what happened
though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be too much
of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig

On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they refused
to judge 3509. On May 25, they judged it DISMISS. On May 25, PSS moved for
reconsideration. On May 25, Cuddlebeam accepted reconsideration. On June
1, CB submitted a message titled "Judgement of CFJ 3509" with identical
text to their previous Judgement in CFJ 3508. They now refuse to judge
it again, despite accepting reconsideration.

========================================================================

Judge o's Arguments:

At the heart of this confusing tale is a single proposition: that on two
occasions, CuddleBeam assigned a judgement to CFJ 3509.

This proposition is false. No message originating from CuddleBeam
assigns a judgement to CFJ 3509. Several messages are labelled as if
they do so, but inspection of their contents shows that they do not. To
make sense of this we must look at the statement in question in CFJ
3509. From Arisí message assigning the CFJ number:

> On May 23, 2017, at 9:14 PM, Alex Smith 
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 19:20 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > I CFJ on these statements:
> >
> > "Any player may take the office of Rulekeepor with 2 support." [i.e.
> > I got a pink slip]
> > "o committed a cardable offense in issuing a Pink Slip to Gaelan."
> >
> > I bar o from both CFJs.
>
> These are CFJ 3508 and CFJ 3509 respectively. I assign them to
> CuddleBeam.

The statement in CFJ 3509 is

> o committed a cardable offense in issuing a Pink Slip to Gaelan.

Letís look at CuddleBeamís messages. First, on May 25th, e published a
message with the subject "CFJ 3509 Judgement (Dismissed, insufficient
information)", which assigned a judgement to the statement

> Any player may take the office of Rulekeepor with 2 support.

This is not the statement in CFJ 3509, in spite of the subject of the
message, and therefore does not assign a judgement to CFJ 3509. Judges
are not empowered to replace the statement, thankfully.

Second, on June 1st, e published a message with the subject "CFJ 3509
Judgement (Dismissed, insufficient information)". This message assigns a
judgement to the statement

> Any player may take the office of Rulekeepor with 2 support.

Again, this is not the statement in CFJ 3509, and does not assign a
judgement to that CFJ. CuddleBeam even noted the error in the subject
line of this message in a subsequent reply the same day.

As far as I can find, there are no other messages from CuddleBeam which
either purport to assign a judgement to CFJ 3509, and no other messages
from CuddleBeam assigning judgement to the statement in that CFJ. As no
other Judge has been appointed, it is impossible for anyone else to have
assigned a judgement.

Therefore CFJ 3509 has never been assigned a judgement, and the statement

> CFJ 3509 has no judgement

is TRUE.

========================================================================