On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2107 >> >> ========================= Criminal Case 2107 ========================= >> >> Ivan Hope violated R2149 by making the untruthful statement >> "UNDECIDABLE is never appropriate." > > I judge GUILTY. The defendant acknowledged that e was aware of the > "not capable of being accurately described as either false or true" > criterion in Rule 591, and I believe that even the staunchest > supporter of the Law of the Excluded Middle would acknowledge the > existence of statements that don't necessarily have an accurate truth > value.
I appeal the above judgement. Arguments: You appear to have ignored my reasonable (or so I think) arguments that UNDECIDABLE is never appropriate. I believe these arguments consisted of the fact that in the case of ambiguity, there's extremely strong precedent that UNDECIDABLE is not appropriate, and in the case of contradiction, one contradictory thing will take precedence over the other--if not by some explicit precedence clause in the rules, then by rule 217. I can initiate criminal cases as a member of the PerlNomic Partnership, which means that I can initiate criminal cases against judges and members of judicial panels for judging GUILTY and AFFIRM inappropriately. > However, I disagree with the initiator's claim that the circumstances > under which the statement make the statement particularly egregious so > as to warrant a judgment of CHOKEY or EXILE; I believe the defendant > did legitimately believe the judgment of UNDECIDABLE to be > inappropriate in the cases at issue, and that neither eir initiation > of criminal CFJs nor eir erroneous arguments in bringing them were > particularly damaging to the game. I sentence the Ninny to FINE. This is an interesting sentence, as I'm not a player and therefore have no Notes, and certainly won't have any in the next 72 hours. Nevertheless, I think my obligation to destroy a Note is a punishment even if it is ineffective, meaning that by R101, I can't be punished again. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
