OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3815 Judged TRUE by Cuddle Beam

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3815
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).

===============================  CFJ 3815  ===============================

      Today, I submitted a proposal entitled 'Judicial Jocularity Act'.

==========================================================================

Caller:                        twg

Judge:                         Cuddle Beam
Judgement:                     TRUE

==========================================================================

History:

Called by twg:                                    14 Feb 2020 18:41:58
Assigned to Cuddle Beam:                          19 Feb 2020 15:22:49
Judged TRUE by Cuddle Beam:                       19 Feb 2020 21:40:47

==========================================================================

Caller's Evidence:

I wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: 𝒥𝓊𝒹𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝒥𝑜𝒸𝓊𝓁𝒶𝓇𝒾𝓉𝓎 𝒜𝒸𝓉
> Adoption index: 1.7
> Chamber: Justice
> Author: twg
> Co-authors:
>
> Amend Rule 591, "Delivering Judgement", by replacing each occurrence of
> "DISMISS" with "¯\(ツ)/¯".
>
> [Very few CFJs get judged DISMISS at the moment; I figure the generation
> of mirth outweighs the slight inconvenience of having to copy-and-paste
> it from the ruleset occasionally.]


Caller's Arguments:

I don't think "title" is ever explicitly defined in the rules. Is the
exact sequence of Unicode characters important? Or is it just the
English-language words made up of those characters? If I included
invisible Unicode characters in a proposal title, so that it looked like
plain ASCII but wasn't, would the answer be any different?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge Cuddle Beam's Arguments:

The title in question is "𝒥𝓊𝒹𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝒥𝑜𝒸𝓊𝓁𝒶𝓇𝒾𝓉𝓎 𝒜𝒸𝓉".

We've had other languages and special symbols interpreted before (CFJ
3536, 3544) provided that it is understandable. CFJ 3530 provides a limit
to how obscure the symbols and language used can be before it is no longer
reasonably understandable and dismissed for purposes of play.

I don't find this overly obscure, because it's fairly easily readable.

This is normal English, but in a cool font. It says "Judicial Jocularity
Act".

"Judicial Jocularity Act" and "𝒥𝓊𝒹𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝒥𝑜𝒸𝓊𝓁𝒶𝓇𝒾𝓉𝓎
𝒜𝒸𝓉" are the same thing but written in different fonts, and the font
used is not relevant for differences between titles (as long as it is
reasonably understandable).

I judge TRUE

==========================================================================