root wrote:
On 11/4/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
On 11/4/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
Second, the statement of this case is deliberately vague; it does not
specify the circumstances to which it applies, but an UNDECIDABLE
judgement is permissible iff it is appropriate. Therefore, a
judgement of UNDECIDABLE is appropriate for this case per R591,
whereas judgements of TRUE and FALSE clearly are not.
No, the statement is equivalent to "Judging UNDECIDABLE is permissible
in all situations in which judging is to occur", which is false. I will
attempt to appeal a judgement of UNDECIDABLE on these grounds.
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.
What specific precedent do you see as backing up any of these methods
of interpretation?
What precedent is there for yours?
CFJ 1304, for instance:
If the Executor of an entity posts to the Public Forum - clearly
stating that e posts to the Public Forum on behalf of the entity,
as if e were the entity - then the entity is considered to have
posted to the Public Forum.
This was true in most situations (when an entity's Executor was emself),
but false in the situations questioned in the caller's arguments, and
Eris judged FALSE accordingly.
However, in fairness, CFJ 1487:
A Watcher is still an active Player.
was dismissed due to lack of specificity.
