Galle wrote, in part: > Finally, there is the literal interpretation. The rule is > written in the passive voice, without specifying any > particular agent. Therefore, I argue that the clause is > triggered if and only if no actually existing agent can > establish, by the preponderance of evidence, that the > infractor committed the infraction. So long as there is > any agent who can do this, the clause is not triggered. <snip> > assuming that there are no omniscient agents, at the > moment I rolled a 3 and violated Galle's Third Dice > Pledge, the infraction was instantly and automatically > forgiven by Rule 2531 <snip> > > On the other hand, if there is at least one omniscient > agent, we are in the situation contemplated above, where > this clause of Rule 2531 is equivalent to "infractions > are automatically forgiven if the infractor is innocent". > In that case, I CAN be investigated for the infraction > and the statement is TRUE.
I'm not sure we should consider an omniscient being as one who "establishe[s] by a preponderance of the evidence". E knows, beyond all doubt, without considering any evidence: evidence doesn't come into it. In fact, eir consideration of any evidence would just muddy the waters, opening up a possibility of a result that e knows to be false. Thus, even if there is such a being, arguably "the alleged infracter can't be established by a preponderance of the evidence to have committed the infraction", so that you should be considered forgiven and the CFJ should be judged FALSE. All the best, msh210
