[I'm taking the route of a new CFJ because of the self-negating nature
of an appeal]. I call for judgement on the following two linked
statements:
1. The statement labeled by the CotC as the CFJ statement for
CFJ 2079 was a CFJ statement called by root.
I bar Murphy
2. The statement labeled by the CotC as the CFJ statement for
CFJ 2080 was a CFJ statement called by Quazie.
I bar root
I also request, for fairness, that Quazie not be assigned to these
cases if at all possible (I'd bar all three if I could).
Arguments:
CotC Murphy took it for granted that "I CFJ on this statement." self-
labeled the whole sentence "I CFJ on this statement" as a CFJ statement,
and that "I CFJ on that statement." referenced a quoted "I CFJ on this
statement."
An "announcement which includes the statement to be inquired into" as
required by R591 could apply to a whole sentence, or a clause such as
"this statement" or even just "statement." root has noted that e believes
eir statement to be generally isomorphic to "This is a CFJ", but to my
memory Agoran custom is that those kinds of CFJs are often prefaced
with "I CFJ on the following: this is a CFJ" so those cases aren't
applicable for this particular question.
The question is whether root (and Quazie) submitted CFJs which clearly
indicated which part of the sentences in question were the "statement".
There's currently no specific standard in the rules for determination,
and the opinion of the CotC on its own might be subject to oversight.
I note that CotC's have in fact rejected/refused to assign judgements
which state "I CFJ on whether X happened" and the like as not clearly
defining or labeling a statement, and they certainly haven't assigned
the whole sentence as a CFJ.
The previous Rule for calling for judgement required "a single clearly-
labeled Statement" to be made and (R991/5). I think, by Agoran custom
where the rules are silent, this is reasonable. root and Quazie might
state that the internal self-labeling was clear, though clearly (in
Quazie's case) it was not clear enough as the CotC's interpretation
differed from the caller. I personally argue for a judgement of FALSE,
that neither sentence sufficiently delimited or clearly labeled
a "CFJ statement" to a standard of clarity that would be reasonable
enough to make it clear what the actual CFJ statement was or was intended
to be (so the actions failed).
Evidence:
Statements labeled by the CotC as "CFJ statements":
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2008-July/004681.html
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2008-July/004683.html
-Goethe
