On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2065
>>
>> ============================== CFJ 2065 ==============================
>>
>> Sgeo has won today or yesterday (relative to the initiation of
>> this CFJ).
>>
>> ========================================================================
>
> Let's start some controversy!
>
> Judgement:
>
> For reference: First, Sgeo's statement of intent:
>
> With Agoran Consent, I intend to act on behalf of Agora to award a win to
> myself
> and all persons who support my acting on behalf of Agora in this way.
>
> And eir allged action:
>
> With Agoran Consent, I act on behalf of Agora to award myself and all
> supporters a Win.
>
> --
> The first issue is whether the statement of intent "unambiguously
> descri[s] both the action and the method". The method (Agoran Consent)
> is correctly described. Whether the action is correctly described
> depends on whether "all persons who support my acting on behalf of
> Agora in this way" is unambiguous.
>
> Precedent in CFJ 1334 (referenced by root's arguments) has held that a
> statement of intent is ambiguous when it is missing an essential
> parameter for the action in question that will need to be assigned
> when the action is completed. Arguably, who actually supports the
> action is an essential parameter here that is so missing at the time
> of the statement of intent. Allowing arbitrary incorporation of
> volatile essential parameters would eviscerate the intent of the
> rules' requirement that the action be unambiguously specified in the
> statement of intent, for a clever conspiracy could completely change
> the action allegedly intended after the statement of intent. Now, this
> case is not so bad because Sgeo does not control eir parameter. And,
> indeed, some uncertainty is inherent from statements of intent because
> the rules give latitude as to when exactly they are resolved. But the
> ambiguity of Sgeo's intent rises well above that level, as the entire
> contents of the most essential parameter of the action are determined
> after the statement of intent.
>
> Therefore I judge FALSE.
>
With 2 Support, I intend to appeal this judgement.
