=============================== CFJ 3805 ===============================
G really ought to make sure the string doesn’t adversely affect eir archive.
Called by Gaelan: 31 Jan 2020 19:20:26
Assigned to Aris: 31 Jan 2020 20:36:36
Judged TRUE by Aris: 07 Feb 2020 04:45:59
Judge Aris's Arguments:
The caller's arguments for TRUE are so very convincing that I'll reproduce
them in full in quotes below.
Now, after having heard such excellent and detailed arguments from the
caller, one might ask whether there is anything of substance left for a
judge to say on the matter. However, on account of their level of
verbosity, I conclude that some elucidation might be warranted.
Surely, anyone who has not read paragraph 11A of the arguments cannot know
the poetic fashion in which e shows the dangers of attacks such as the one
presented in this case. I shall point out though that a person less
gracious than the caller might have used the vulnerability the caller
shows for far less benign purposes, such as phishing, or exploitation of
the archive user's computer. Surely, even the faintest possibility of such
harm to innocent Agorans must not be tolerated.
Further, I will point out the grace with which the caller delivers eir
point that the Arbitor is already ENCOURAGED by Rule 2143 to maintain
a copy of eir reports on the World Wide Web. Many lesser officers would
not do so, and indeed, the Arbitor is due great respect for maintaining a
publicly accessible archive of almost all past judicial cases and their
arguments. Nevertheless, I cannot disagree with even one statement made
by the caller about how the Arbitor's virtue in maintaining the archives
at all cannot excuse em from eir duty of care towards their users.
I have attached an exhibit showing the current state of the archives.
This exhibit is so fundamental to my arguments that I do not think they
can be construed without it, and so I beg that it be included on the court
record for future historians to see.
Finally, I must come to the matter of my verdict. There are a number of
verdicts I could consider in this case. Firstly, I might DISMISS the
case because the statement is malformed. While having HTML formatting in
a statement is unusual, it doesn't render the statement unparsable, so
DISMISS is inappropriate. The statement clearly presents no paradox, so I
cannot adjudge it PARADOXICAL. With such a clear record before me (the
verbosity of the caller's arguments notwithstanding), I could hardly enter
a ruling of INSUFFICIENT. Finally, I will note that the state of the
Arbitor's archives has a distinct impact on gameplay, through its effect
on the ease with which players are able to consult the wise precedents
that Agoran history has provided us with, leading me to conclude that the
case is not IRRELEVANT. I am restricted only to the possibilities of TRUE
and FALSE. The statement appears considerably more TRUE than FALSE (who
could claim that the Arbitor *shouldn't* fix a vulnerability in eir