=============================== CFJ 3780 ===============================
There exists a CFJ, created by twg in November 2019, with the text
"I am a candidate for prime minister."
Called by Gaelan: 06 Nov 2019 22:54:28
Assigned to D. Margaux: 08 Nov 2019 16:59:45
D. Margaux Recused: 07 Dec 2019 17:12:04
Assigned to Falsifian: 07 Dec 2019 17:12:04
Judged FALSE by Falsifian: 09 Jan 2020 18:00:22
[Message from twg as it appeared]
On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 9:06 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 7:28 AM Kerim Aydin email@example.com wrote:
> > On 11/3/2019 10:31 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > I initiate an election for Prime Minister.
> > I nominate myself for P.M., for the sake of having a contested
> > election, and I encourage other nominees. -G.
> I stand for PM, in the interests of having fun and because it's
> basically a tradition that G. and I both run at this point.
And my axe!
Election speech: "CFJ: I am a candidate for Prime Minister."
Gratuitous Arguments from the Arbitor:
A note: past habits are to assign the alleged CFJ, then if it turns
out it wasn't a CFJ, it still stays in the record with that ID number
but with an added note "this didn't turn out to be an actual CFJ due
to [other CFJ]".
Also, IIRC, the argument "it must have been a CFJ, because the Arbitor
assigned it" has been tried and was not found to be logically sound...
The alleged CFJ was numbered 3779:
Judge Falsifian's Arguments:
In November, twg said:
> Election speech: "CFJ: I am a candidate for Prime Minister."
It is not obvious whether twg created a CFJ in this message. However,
my judgement does not rely on answering that. As G. pointed out in a
gratuitous argument, the text in CFJ 3780 uses a different
capitalization. I find that even if twg did create a CFJ, it did not
have the text
> "I am a candidate for prime minister"
since the capitalization is different.
Does the difference in capitalization really make the text different?
The rules don't explicitly address this question, but game custom and
common sense tell us that it does:
* The rules use capitalization in different ways; for example, the
words CAN, MUST, SHOULD, etc covered by the Mother, May I rule tend
to be in all upper-case, some words tend to be capitalized, etc.
* Rules 2599 and 2221 explicitly mention capitalization, and a proposal
from September (8236, "Definition de-capitalization") consists mostly
of capitalization changes. If differently-capitalized text were the
same, these rules and proposals would be about non-existent
differences, which would be strange.
Finally, could twg have created such a CFJ in another message? I have
no memory of this, and a quick email search shows no other messages
from twg containing the word "candidate", so this is very unlikely,
considering the "unambiguously and clearly" requirement in Rule 478.
I judge CFJ 3780 FALSE.
Did twg create a CFJ?
Ignoring the capitalization issue, it is interesting to consider
whether twg created a CFJ in their message at all. (For example, it
affects whether Jason Cobb earned 5 coins by judging the alleged CFJ.)
This has some similarity to CFJ 3782, in that the text calling the CFJ
was set aside in a way that could be construed to indicate that it's a
mere mention of the text, rather than an announcement with that text as
its content. In this case, the text was in quotes, and in the case of
CFJ 3782, it was clearly marked as the text of a proposal. (Note: the
text of Rule 478 changed between CFJs 3780 and 3782 being called, but
the difference is not relevant to these arguments.)
There is an important difference here: twg presented the text as eir
own speech. The obvious reading of 'Election speech: "X"' is that one
is announcing X, and also noting that it is one's election speech. For
example, if I wrote 'Election speech: "I promise to grant Coins to all
players."', it would be absurd for me to later claim I never made that
promise. I see no reason why wrapping an announcement in an election
speech should rob it of its effect.
For this reason, I see no ambiguity in twg's announcement, so e did in
fact create a CFJ. Thanks to G. for leading me to this point of view
(see gratuitous arguments below).
I find that twg did create a CFJ in eir message, and so CFJ 3779
exists. (This does not assign a judgement to a CFJ, since no CFJ asks