Also: prior rules and game custom allow for linking of CFJs that are
related - why haven't you been upset at other instances where multiple CFJs
were assigned at once?
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 09:10 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 1 - Really? Okay then, I point my finger at ais523 for the reasons stated
> before.
>
> 2 - Game flow is not a consideration that the rules allow for.
>
> 3 - That is completely irrelevant it requires support not lack of
> objection.
> ----
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jun 29, 2017, at 9:05 AM, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
>
>
