Dead-horse arguments on CFJ 3828: Respectfully, I think the Honorable G. has read too much into Rule 2518 "Determinacy". I think that that rule is merely a definition of the words "determinate" and "indeterminate" and has no intentional consequences besides that. In particular, nowhere does Rule 2518 say or imply that if a value is indeterminate, then we are relieved of any duty to attempt to determine it.
Furthermore, Rule 217 "Interpreting the Rules" says that in case of ambiguity, the text of the rules "is to be" augmented by four factors. The use of the phrase "is to be" suggests that such augmentation is mandatory; we are expected not to simply give up on attempting to answer a question merely because the answer is not clear from reading the rules. Of course, Rule 217 is clearly not saying that every player at all times has a responsibility to attempt to resolve every open question. But surely a judge *does* have a responsibility to attempt to resolve the question which e has been called to judge. The rules certainly do anticipate that a value may be wholly and thoroughly impossible to determine; otherwise the judgement of PARADOXICAL would not exist. But, all the same, I think that before assigning a judgement of PARADOXICAL, a judge is responsible for explaining why all four of the factors listed on Rule 217 fail to resolve the indeterminacy. In any case, I thank G. for eir judgement. —Warrigal
