I call for judgement on the statement "At no point in time between the moment this CFJ is assigned to a judge, and the next moment at which either rule 2215 is repealed, amended, or otherwise fails to be enforceable with its current meaning, will it be legal for the judge of this CFJ to publically make an undisclaimed statement with the same meaning as this one (i.e. replacing 'the judge of this CFJ' with the actual judge, etc.).", barring ə.
Evidence (from rule 2215): {{{ A person SHALL NOT make a public statement on a matter relevant to the rules unless e reasonably believes that it is true (or, in the case of a public statement that one performs an action, that is effective). }}} Arguments: Due to rule 2215, the statement is equivalent to, for the time period in question, "The judge of this CFJ does not believe that reasonably believe that this statement is true." Clearly, therefore, the judge of the CFJ could not believe that that statement were true without being unaware of eir own beliefs, which would be a strange belief to have. Therefore, the judge of this CFJ cannot believe that the statement in question is true. The judge of this CFJ also cannot believe that the statement is false, unless e also simultaneously believes that e will at some point change eir mind. The argument above shows that e cannot change eir mind (I believe that the judge of this case will likely be a logical human being capable of reasoning, and will see the arguments above); and rule 2215 will almost certainly be amended at some point, thus presenting a deadline for the judge to change eir mind. (The CFJ works, though, even if it isn't.) In other words, I have constructed what is, for the judge of the CFJ in question, an undecidable situation. (This is by analogy with Gödel's incompleteness theorem; in contrast to the rather boring Epimenides paradoxes that people try from time to time, it does not create a paradox, but rather a statement that a particular person cannot decide is either true or false.) Note that this CFJ is not UNDETERMINED (all relevant information has been given, and from then on it's purely logic), IRRELEVANT (as the legality of a potential action is necessarily relevant to the game, because it can aid people in determining whether to take the action or not), or MALFORMED (the CFJ statement is indeed a statement). -- ais523