If possible, I judge CFJ 3438 TRUE on reconsideration, per previous arguments.
In lieu of a better way to ask players whether the CFJ system is broken, I hereby call the following: (yet more CFJs about whether other CFJs have certain judgements!) 1. "CFJ 3438 has a judgement of DISMISS." 2. "CFJ 3438 has a judgement of TRUE." Arguments: DISMISS is the original judgement, TRUE is the reconsidered one. Refer to the quoted message and other players' replies to it for why FALSE/FALSE and TRUE/FALSE are possibilities. I humbly request that the judge *not* do something like "I attempt to judge #1 TRUE, since this only succeeds if the statement is in fact true". :) On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 3:14 AM, omd <[email protected]> wrote: > However, I do not deliver this judgement, because after looking at > that wording a bit – > > When a CFJ becomes open and is assigned to a judge, that judge > SHALL assign a valid judgement to the case within a week of > assignment, by announcement. If e does not, the Arbitor CAN > remove em from being the judge of that case by announcement. > > What does the "when" clause mean, exactly? In the order I thought of: > 1. When a CFJ becomes open while (at the time) being assigned to a judge... > 2. When a CFJ becomes open, as well as when a CFJ is assigned to a judge... > 3. When a CFJ goes through a process of 'becoming open and then being > assigned to a judge'... > > 2 is out, because "that judge" would be a dangling reference in the > former case. 1 is the most grammatically obvious interpretation, but > implies that judges are not allowed to judge, since a CFJ only becomes > open when it's created and upon a Motion to Reconsider; the former > does not happen while a judge is assigned, and the latter requires a > preceding judgement to reconsider. I see 3 as grammatically a > stretch, although I guess it must have been what you intended(?) - and > making something happen "when" a non-instantaneous process occurs has > no real precedent I can think of; in any case, assuming any particular > instance of becoming open can only be part of one process, it makes > *reconsidered* judgements impossible, because no new judge assignment > occurs after the reopening. > > Either way, I cannot actually deliver a reconsidered judgement. And > the CFJ system is possibly completely broken. Unless I'm missing > another completely obvious thing, that is... thoughts?
