I recuse the judge of CFJ 7 from CFJ 7 (note: this may do nothing).
I assign CFJ 7 to Jason.
================================ CFJ 7 =================================
Because of Rule 111, Rule 112 takes precedence over Rule 219.
Therefore, Rule 219 has no legal force.
==========================================================================
Caller: Wes
Judge: Jason
==========================================================================
History:
Called by Wes: 05 Aug 1993 22:26:27
Assigned to Jason: [now]
==========================================================================
Gratuitous Arguments by G. (written in March 2020):
Around March 1 2020, the full text case log for CFJ 7 from the CotC
archives appeared as follows:
> Call for Judgement from Wes (Thu Aug 5 22:26:27 GMT 1993)
>
> "Because of Rule 111, Rule 112 takes precedence over Rule
> 219. Therefore, Rule 219 has no legal force."
>
> { This CFJ was never judged.}
(https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/7_ExA.txt)
In a separate CFJ, I will present arguments for the current (March 2020)
existence and status of CFJ 7. I hope and humbly request that the judge
here not concern emself those issues, and instead focus on a resolution of
the actual matter of dispute raised by Wes in 1993.
Further, it would be trivial (under the current rules) to judge this case
IRRELEVANT (due to it being long in the past), or DISMISS for lacking
information of the state of the game in 1993. It would be hard to argue
against the right of a judge to deliver such a judgement. However, I urge
the judge to decide between TRUE and FALSE, and in doing so, finally lay
this 26+ year old matter to rest.
I make this request for the following reasons:
First, the information required to judge this case is available. We don’t
know the exact ruleset on August 5, 1993. However, Zefram’s archives have
two ruleset versions that bracket this time reasonably closely:
Initial ruleset, dated June 30, 1993
Original: http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/chuck0_nr_19930630.txt
In evidence as:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/7_ExB.txt
Ruleset dated August 28, 1993
Original: http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/usenet0_nr_19930828.txt
In evidence as:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/7_ExC.txt
An examination of these two rulesets shows that the rules in question in
the statement (111, 112, and 219) did not change during this period;
further an examination of two rulesets suggests that other supporting
rules on precedence, etc. were relatively unchanged. Therefore, the
ruleset to use for judging is relatively clear.
Second, the context for the case is clean. The case involves the
resolution of a direct and straightforward conflict between initial rules.
This was very early in the life of Agora, and none of the prior CFJs (1-6)
touch on the rules involved here. Therefore, this case provides a unique
opportunity for a “pure rules” adjudication, made free of the weight of
judicial precedent, game custom, or similar historical clouding of the
issue.
Third, I believe that TRUE and FALSE are the only 100% consistent
judgement options for the duration of the game. In terms of alternatives
to TRUE/FALSE, the initial rules included UNDECIDED; in 1995 this was
changed to UNDECIDABLE and UNKNOWN, then later DISMISS was the only
choice. Choices proliferated in 2006/2007 (including IRRELEVANT), then in
2014 we cut back again to DISMISS only, before moving to what we have
today. In 2007, Proposal 5371
(https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2007-August/003161.html)
actively replaced some judgements with others with this clause:
* For each pre-reform CFJ with an unappealed judgement, the
post-reform inquiry case has a judgement assigned to its question on
veracity, according to this translation:
+ Pre-reform FALSE judgement corresponds to post-reform FALSE.
+ Pre-reform TRUE judgement corresponds to post-reform TRUE.
+ Any other pre-reform judgement corresponds to post-reform
UNDETERMINED.
But this was after several of the changes in valid judgement types
mentioned above (for which full proposal texts are unavailable), so it is
not clear whether these past alternatives to TRUE/FALSE hold up today or
transitioned through different rule versions. Throughout it all, TRUE
and FALSE have been consistent. Given the uncertainty on other judgements
over time, I hope that either TRUE or FALSE can be determined.
Finally, I ask the judge to think of Wes, submitting this matter of
controversy on August 5, 1993, likely with the reasonable expectation that
the controversy would thereby be resolved. It’s time to end eir wait of
9,723+ days, and finally and fully resolve the pressing matter at hand.
==========================================================================
