On 6/20/2020 11:04 AM, James Cook via agora-business wrote: > On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 22:04, Edward Murphy wrote: >> >> G. wrote: >> >>> The below CFJ is 3844. I assign it to Murphy. >>> >>> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3844 >>> >>> =============================== CFJ 3844 =============================== >>> >>> The destruction of the Bazinga asset would lead to the destruction >>> of one or more rules, but for the Rule 'Agora is a Nomic' >>> >>> ========================================================================== > > ... > >> Per my judgement of CFJ 3843, Bazinga isn't an asset, thus the statement >> is overly hypothetical. >> >> DISMISS. > > Shouldn't that be IRRELEVANT? That's the judgment "overly > hypothetical" is associated with in R591. > > I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a Motion to Reconsider CFJ > 3843. (Not a huge deal, but also seems like it should be easy to > re-judge.) (I think we still have a little over 24 hours.)
I think the "insufficient information" in DISMISS can be read as "if a statement is overly hypothetical, it also means we don't have enough information about that hypothetical state to judge" so DISMISS isn't wrong (even though it might not be the *most* appropriate when irrelevant also exists). I think the only time the distinction matters is when it impacts a PARADOXICAL possibility (that forbids dismiss). -G.
