root wrote: > The statement could equally be equivalent to "Judging UNDECIDABLE is > [generally] permissible" (FALSE), "Judging UNDECIDABLE is [sometimes] > permissible" (TRUE), or even "Judging UNDECIDABLE is permissible [in > this case]" (FALSE). As it stands, it contains zero context, which in > my eyes makes it too vague for a true or false judgement.
A judge may make a reasonable assertion as to which of the above the unclear statement applies, and return a reasonable judgement or TRUE or FALSE accordingly, provided e clarifies to which it applies for the purpose of precedent. It should withstand appeal, and the caller's recourse is to re-call the case with more clarity in the statement. There are many cases where the intent of the caller did not match the precise semantics of the CFJ, leading to a trivial judgement which missed the caller's intent. Nothing wrong with that. -Goethe
