On 6/18/13 15:58 , Jonathan Rouillard wrote: > Detail: http://cotc.psychose.ca/viewcase.php?cfj=3339 > > ============================== CFJ 3339 ============================== > > If the rules contained the statement "It is LEGAL to shout > 'CREAMPUFF' if and only if it is ILLEGAL to shout 'CREAMPUFF'", > and this contradiction were not resolved, overridden, or > otherwise mitigated by another rule, and a CFJ were called on > the statement "It is LEGAL to shout 'CREAMPUFF' if and only if > it is ILLEGAL to shout 'CREAMPUFF'", then TRUE would be an > appropriate judgement for that CFJ, and FALSE would be an > inappropriate judgement for that CFJ. > > ========================================================================
I judge CFJ 3339 FALSE. Game custom generally considers statements that are not clearly true and not clearly false as a separate category, both when the rules provide contradictory information or and when they provide insufficient information. This is most clearly embodied by our long tradition of calling something a Win By Paradox instead of a Win By Incompleteness. It can also been seen our provision of a judgment of UNDECIDABLE that is separate from a judgment of TRUE or FALSE. It has been generally uncontroverisal to resolve conflicts in rules and similar documents not handled using the usual precedences as UNDECIDABLE, even though the judgment of UNDECIDABLE is not appropriate when true or false is. (e.g. direct conflict within a rule before R2240 existed in its present form was resolved as UNDECIDABLE in CFJ 2650; numerous cases involving self-referential statements concluded the self-contradictory statement was neither true nor false, even when it was part of a contract or foreign nomic ruleset being interpreted.) - woggle
