=============================== CFJ 3841 ===============================
In the above statement, I issued a Call for Judgement on whether I
transferred a coin to Agora in the statement preceding that one.
Called by ATMunn: 03 Jun 2020 01:34:29
Assigned to Jason: 07 Jun 2020 17:29:26
Judged TRUE by Jason: 11 Jun 2020 15:11:02
On 6/2/2020 6:34 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
> Yo transfiero una moneda a Agora.
> CFJ: En la declaración anterior, transferí una moneda a Agora.
> CFJ: In the above statement, I issued a Call for Judgement on whether
> I transferred a coin to Agora in the statement preceding that one.
[Arbitor's note: The "first CFJ" refers to this CFJ (CFJ 3840). The
"second CFJ" refers to CFJ 3841]
Nothing in the rules states that statements of intent must be in English.
Rule 478 states that a person performs an action by "unambiguously and
clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it." Though
not everyone may be able to understand Spanish, it is clear that the
message is in Spanish, and, when translated online, the message
unambiguously and clearly specifies the action. For this reason, I think
that this CFJ should be judged TRUE. However, an argument for judging it
FALSE is that Agora has, since its beginning, always been conducted in
English. The actual statement itself in its current form, therefore, could
be interpreted as being very unclear and ambiguous, since most readers
will not understand its meaning without a translator.
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
Since the first statement is clearly labelled statement that uses the
rules-defined term of art CFJ, I'm treating it as clearly being a CFJ
(previous foreign-language CFJ experiments included attempts to translate
the phrase "I Call for Judgement on..." into the foreign language as well,
so were different situations).
Of course (for the second cfj), whether the first cfj is a cfj on "whether
I transferred a coin..." is still an open question.
Judge Jason's Arguments:
The evaluation of this statement requires two questions to be answered:
1. Did the caller (ATMunn) "issue" a Call for Judgement in the
2. If so, is that Call for Judgement "on whether [e] transferred a coin
to Agora in the statement preceding" the statement in which e issued
that Call for Judgement.
In answer to the first question, I find that ATMunn did "issue" a CFJ in
the referenced statement. The minor wording difference between eir
"issue" and Rule 991/31's "initiate" is not significant - nobody would
bat an eye at a player saying "I issue a CFJ...". Second, the acronym
"CFJ" followed by a statement is commonly accepted to initiate a CFJ.
Rule 991 states that this is a by-announcement action, and Rule 478/38
sets a standard of "clearly specifying the action and announcing that e
performs it" for by-announcement actions. The caller's statement clearly
meets this standard, and the fact that the statement of the created CFJ
is in a foreign language is irrelevant by CFJ 3535 .
Now I move to the second question, which is likely the more significant
issue in this case. CFJ 3536  used machine-translation to translate a
CFJ statement into a foreign language, and judged it DISMISS based on
the fact that the translated meaning of the statement was ill-formed,
rather than the statement itself being in a foreign language. This
implies that judges are permitted to inspect the platonic meaning of the
statement of a CFJ in a foreign language. As such, I will do so here.
The statement of the CFJ referenced by the statement of this CFJ is "En
la declaración anterior, transferí una moneda a Agora."
Machine-translation by Google Translate yields "In the statement above,
I transferred a coin to Agora.", which is abundantly clear, and is
confirmed by discussion on the mailing lists and my rudimentary Spanish
knowledge. Having determined unambiguously the meaning of the statement
of the previous CFJ, and finding it consistent with being "on whether
[the caller] transferred a coin to Agora" in the preceding CFJ, I find TRUE.