But he had already assigned it if it existed on official - he just gave it a number while issuing judgements
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 09:14 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > My issue is where in the course of his judgement, he stated that a CFJ > existed then immediately assigned it. > ---- > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > > > On Jun 29, 2017, at 9:13 AM, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > >