Index ← 3836 CFJ 3837 3838 → text
===============================  CFJ 3837  ===============================

      Falsifian owns at least one blot if and only if English Wikipedia
      has an article titled "Sponge".

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

Caller:                        Falsifian

Judge:                         grok
Judgement:                     IRRELEVANT

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

History:

Called by Falsifian:                              24 May 2020 16:50:08
Assigned to grok:                                 31 May 2020 19:06:51
Judged IRRELEVANT by grok:                        06 Jun 2020 18:07:34

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

Caller's Arguments:

Wikipedia has an article titled "Sponge", so this comes down to
whether Falsifian owns at least one blot.

Blots affect voting power, so this CFJ is not IRRELEVANT.

According to the last two Referee reports (the second-last has
self-ratified), Falsifian owns no blots. E has not gained any since.
So FALSE.


Caller's Evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge (just now archived at
https://web.archive.org/web/20200524164258/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge)

From the latest referee report:

>    Blots    Active player
>    -----    -------------
>      1      G.
>      2      Gaelan
>      2      nch
>      2      omd
>      2      R. Lee
>      2      twg
>
>    Blots    Zombie
>    -----    ------
>
>    No fugitives exist.

From the 2019-05-17 referee report:

>    Blots    Active player
>    -----    -------------
>      1      G.
>      2      Gaelan
>      1      Murphy
>      2      nch
>      2      omd
>      2      twg
>
>    Blots    Zombie
>    -----    ------
>
>    No fugitives exist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gratuitous Arguments by nch:

This CFJ should be found FALSE because the rules do not define a
biconditional relationship between these facts, regardless of whether
either individual fact is TRUE or FALSE.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

A judgement of IRRELEVANT is also appropriate - to evaluate this, we are 
required to consider a world in which a common subject like "sponge" is
not in Wikipedia.  A world like this might be strange in other ways. 
This is, literally and directly, an "overly hypothetical extrapolation of
the game or its rules to conditions that don't actually exist" as defined
for IRRELEVANT in R591.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gratuitous Arguments by Falsifian:

If you accept my previous argument, i.e. that my statement should be
interpreted in the classical logic way, then there's nothing
hypothetical in my statement.

If you don't, then this seems like a good argument to me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

Although Blot ownership is not IRRELEVANT, the actual
statement of the CFJ is IRRELEVANT; there's no particular relevance in
the combination of Falsifian's blot holdings and the existence of a
particular Wikipedia article.

If CFJs like this one were deemed to be relevant, then judges could be
forced to evaluate the truth of almost arbitrary statements that had
nothing to do with Agora. I'd personally find this useful, but it
seems rather unfair on the judges.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge grok's Arguments:

I believe there are generally two prongs to explore in this CFJ. I
will answer them in order starting with my decision.

== 1 ==

The first question is whether the CFJ passes muster of relevance. G's
gratuitous arguments point to the letter of the law. R591's definition
of IRRELEVANT has three tests:

1. Is the question relevant to the game?
2. Is the question an "overly hypothetical extrapolation of the game"?
3. Can the question be trivially answered from another CFJ?

3837 passes the third test, as this question is not trivially answered
by another CFJ, complete or pending. Tests 1 and 2 are where we find
issues.

Falsifian argues in calling that blots affect voting power, and this
CFJ requests clarity on eir blots, so the CFJ is not IRRELEVANT. It is
true that blots are a gamestate question and RELEVANT, but I am
persuaded by ais523's argument that the existence of a particular
external circumstance is IRRELEVANT. While part of the question passes
muster, I do not see a clear link between the game state question and
the external question.

To clarify, I find the primary issue here to be a lack of announced
game state actions that link the external circumstance and Falsifian's
blot count. I do believe there are ways to take actions by
announcement that can link the gamestate to external elements
(Pledges, Faking, etc.), but absent one here I agree with ais523's
gratuitous argument that this CFJ is IRRELEVANT.

On relevance, I also am persuaded by G's gratuitous argument. While
the CFJ system has wide authority to render judgments, IRRELEVANT can
function as a "pressure release valve" to allow judges some purview to
dismiss overly hypothetical cases. I believe this interpretation can
be extremely valuable to prevent court clog and ensure the CFJ system
is used to primarily resolve game conflicts. I agree with both the
letter of the rule and the above interpretation, and find CFJ 3837
fails the second test and is IRRELEVANT.

I find this CFJ IRRELEVANT, as it is is not relevant to the game as a
whole and is an overly hypothetical extrapolation of the game rules

== 2 ==

There is a group of arguments between nch and Falsifian regarding the
linguistic implications of Falsifian's submitted statement. I believe
the conversation in the gratuitous arguments is worth reading without
my input, so I will simply provide my brief opinion on the results.

I personally believe linguistic intent does not matter when performing
actions by announcement in Agora-Business. The only thing that truly
matters is whether your action was unambiguous. I generally agree with
nch that this CFJ's language is ambiguous, but I tend to believe in
this case that a ruling of "DISMISS" is more appropriate. At very
least, I am most persuaded that the question is undecidable or
malformed than that the question is logically FALSE.

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