status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4028
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 4028 ===============================
There was an infraction noted in this message.
==========================================================================
Caller: Yachay
Judge: G.
Judgement: FALSE
==========================================================================
History:
Called by Yachay: 12 May 2023 12:00:00
Assigned to G.: 12 May 2023 13:20:12
Judged FALSE by G.: 12 May 2023 13:20:12
==========================================================================
Caller's Evidence:
> If 4st has committed the following infraction for the following reason
> described, then I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st
> for being a player.
>
> If 4st has committed the following infraction for the following reason
> described, then I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st
> for holding an office.
>
> If 4st has committed the following infraction for the following reason
> described, then I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st
> for their latest message posted to fora.
>
> If 4st has committed the following infraction for the following reason
> described, then I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st
> for jaywalking without a license, compounded by having dangerous levels of
> swagger.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge G.'s Arguments:
FALSE, due to the use of conditional announcements in the noting
attempts, where the conditions were not "reasonably straightforward to
evaluate at the time with publicly-available information at the time
of communication" as required by Rule 2518/1. In general, the
"reasonably straightforward" clause means that the caller themselves
must be able to resolve the conditional with a bit of minor research
in the archives (e.g. looking at recent past activities) such that
resolving the conditional is a fairly minor act of
interpretation/convenience. These conditionals, which hinge on a
complex question, are not so easy to evaluate.
Judge G.'s Evidence:
Rule 2518/1 (Power=3)
Determinacy
If a value CANNOT be reasonably determined (without circularity or
paradox) from information reasonably available, or if it
alternates indefinitely between values, then the value is
considered to be indeterminate, otherwise it is determinate.
A communication purporting to express conditional intent to
perform an action is considered unclear and ambiguous unless, at a
minimum, the conditional is determinate, true, and reasonably
straightforward to evaluate with publicly-available information at
the time of communication. The communicator SHOULD explain
specific reasons for being uncertain of the outcome when e makes
the communication.
==========================================================================
