> On Jun 13, 2017, at 7:47 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 09:22 +1000, V.J Rada wrote: >> ------------------Bar-------------------- >> I bar Cuddlebeam >> ------------------Statement------------------ >> I call for judgement on this statement. "CFJ 3509 has no judgement" > > I'm interpreting these three messages as a single action, split across > three messages (rather than calling three effectively identical CFJs). > I recommend resolving the potential ambiguity by retracting any CFJs > you've created other than the one that I'm assigning here. > > This is CFJ 3526. I assign it to o.
At the heart of this confusing tale is a single proposition: that on two occasions, CuddleBeam assigned a judgement to CFJ 3509. This proposition is false. No message originating from CuddleBeam assigns a judgement to CFJ 3509. Several messages are labelled as if they do so, but inspection of their contents shows that they do not. To make sense of this we must look at the statement in question in CFJ 3509. From Aris’ message assigning the CFJ number: > On May 23, 2017, at 9:14 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 19:20 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote: >> I CFJ on these statements: >> >> “Any player may take the office of Rulekeepor with 2 support.” [i.e. >> I got a pink slip] >> “o committed a cardable offense in issuing a Pink Slip to Gaelan.” >> >> I bar o from both CFJs. > > These are CFJ 3508 and CFJ 3509 respectively. I assign them to > CuddleBeam. The statement in CFJ 3509 is > o committed a cardable offense in issuing a Pink Slip to Gaelan. Let’s look at CuddleBeam’s messages. First, on May 25th, e published a message with the subject "CFJ 3509 Judgement (Dismissed, insufficient information)”, which assigned a judgement to the statement > Any player may take the office of Rulekeepor with 2 support. This is not the statement in CFJ 3509, in spite of the subject of the message, and therefore does not assign a judgement to CFJ 3509. Judges are not empowered to replace the statement, thankfully. Second, on June 1st, e published a message with the subject "CFJ 3509 Judgement (Dismissed, insufficient information)”. This message assigns a judgement to the statement > Any player may take the office of Rulekeepor with 2 support. Again, this is not the statement in CFJ 3509, and does not assign a judgement to that CFJ. CuddleBeam even noted the error in the subject line of this message in a subsequent reply the same day. As far as I can find, there are no other messages from CuddleBeam which either purport to assign a judgement to CFJ 3509, and no other messages from CuddleBeam assigning judgement to the statement in that CFJ. As no other Judge has been appointed, it is impossible for anyone else to have assigned a judgement. Therefore CFJ 3509 has never been assigned a judgement, and the statement > CFJ 3509 has no judgement is TRUE. >> -------------------Evidence-------------------- >> This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what happened >> though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be too much >> of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig >> >> On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they refused >> to judge 3509. On May 25, they judged it DISMISS. On May 25, PSS moved for >> reconsideration. On May 25, Cuddlebeam accepted reconsideration. On June 1, >> CB submitted a message titled "Judgement of CFJ 3509" with identical text >> to their previous Judgement in CFJ 3508. They now refuse to judge it again, >> despite accepting reconsideration. >> -----------Argument------------ >> There are three possibilities. 1: The statement is TRUE. The DISMISS >> judgement is invalid as overridden by him agreeing to reconsider. The later >> judgement is invalid as a judgement for a different statement. NOTE: If the >> statement is TRUE, the CFJ has been open for over 7 days and can be >> reassigned wink wink nudge nudge put me in coach. 2: The statement is FALSE >> because the latter judgement is valid, even if it refers to a different >> CFJ. 3: The statement is FALSE because the earlier judgement is valid. >> Cuddlebeam agreed to reconsider it, but on June 10 again refused to judge >> it. This should be taken as a refusal to reconsider. Thus, the DISMISS >> judgement is valid. >> >> GLHF! > > -- > ais523 > Arbitor
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
