1 - you can't assign pink slips - only the Referee can 2 - I disagree with your conjecture - those CFJ assignments were reasonable and made the game flow better 3 - I object to your moot intent
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 08:58 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I hereby intend to render judgement 3534 moot. > > I issue a Pink Slip to ais523 for abuse of his office as Arbiter. He had > unduly assigned CFJs to himself in an inequitable manner, which has not > assigned judgements in such a way that "interested players have reasonably > equal opportunities to judge.”, as required by Rule 991. > ---- > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > > > On Jun 29, 2017, at 3:57 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> > wrote: > > > > Judge's evidence on CFJs 3534/3535: > > {{{ > > On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 16:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> I call for judgement on the following statement : أدعو إلى إصدار حكم > بشأن البيان التالي > > > > The source of the body for the above-quoted message is (with bytes > > outside the ASCII range replaced by hexadecimal numbers in angle > > brackets): > > > >> This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable > text, > >> while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware > tools. > >> > >> ---1903399159-33069213-1498691760=:22422 > >> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-6 > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> I call for judgement on the following statement : <C3><CF><D9><E8> > <C5><E4><E9> <C5><D5><CF><C7><D1> <CD><E3><E5> <C8><D4><C3><E6> > <C7><E4><C8><EA><C7><E6> <C7><E4><CA><C7><E4><EA> > >> > >> > >> > >> ---1903399159-33069213-1498691760=:22422-- > > }}} > > > > Judge's arguments on CFJs 3534/3535: > > {{{ > > The arguments so far have hinged on the message in question being > > ambiguous, but is that really the case? I believe that, given the > > method via which it was sent, the original message cannot reasonably be > > interpreted as being in Arabic. > > > > What's notable here is that an encoding of text can convey the meaning > > of the text in two different ways; either using a visual ordering, in > > which the sequence of bytes is corresponds to the positions of the > > individual characters on the page; or a logical ordering, in which the > > sequence of bytes corresponds to the order in which the characters they > > represent have meaning (i.e. bytes that appear earlier in the byte > > stream correspond to letters closer to the start of words, words closer > > to the start of sentences, and so on). A visual ordering would not help > > resolve the ambiguity in respect to the CFJ. A logical ordering would, > > though, as the bytes are conveying not only the appearance of the text > > in this case, but also the intended reading order. > > > > The standard referenced in the message for the understanding of the > > bytes it contains is ISO-8859-6 (which cannot be obtained from ISO > > without payment, but Ecma have a standard Ecma-114 which they claim is > > equivalent). The body of the standard contains no opinion on whether > > the text it's used to represent is in logical or visual order. However, > > email clients in practice appear to interpret it as being in logical > > order; in my client, the bytes <C3><CF><D9><E8>, corresponding to the > > Arabic letters «أ» then «د» then «ع» then «و», are rendered as the > > Arabic word «أدعو» (in other words, they're rendered right to left, the > > normal logical order of Arabic, and the opposite order that they appear > > in the bytestream). > > > > The word in question is a real Arabic word, translating to "I invite" / > > "I call" / "I appeal". If we reverse the order of the letters, to get > > «دعوأ», this is no longer a real Arabic word, strongly implying that > > the message was meant to be in logical order; if the message were meant > > to be in visual order, the Arabic text would therefore have been > > written backwards (i.e. left to right, when right to left is the > > language's normal writing order). > > > > I can also see how my email client interprets the message by asking it > > to word-wrap it: > > > >> I call for judgement on the following statement : أدعو إلى إصدار حكم > >> بشأن البيان التالي > > > > This word-wrapping is clearly incompatible with an Arabic > > interpretation of the message, as it would have split the Arabic in > > half with some English text in the middle. > > > > In other words, I'm not seeing any sensible way to interpret the > > English text as coming "after" the Arabic text. The message itself > > contains an indication that the Arabic text comes second. > > }}} > > > > I judge CFJ 3534 ("In the below quoted message, a CFJ > > was initiated on the phrase 'I call for judgement on the following > > statement'") FALSE, and CFJ 3535 ("In the below quoted message, a CFJ > > was initiated on the phrase 'أدعو إلى إصدار حكم بشأن البيان التالي'") > > TRUE. > > > > Given that I've now determined the existence of a CFJ in G.'.s original > > message, I number it CFJ 3536, assign it to myself if I haven't already > > done so, and judge it DISMISS (it machine-translates to "I call for a > > ruling on the following statement", is clearly intended to mean "I call > > for judgement on the following statement" from context, and it has no > > following statement to refer to, given that it's the last statement in > > the original email). > > > > -- > > ais523 > > Judge, CFJs 3534/3535/3536 > > Arbitor > >