On Thursday, May 7, 2020 8:11:21 AM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > On 5/7/20 3:32 AM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > > I call the following CFJ (I bar trigon) > > "It is a possible game action for a player to use the contract contained > > in > > this message to act on R. Lee's behalf to transfer a coin". > > I also call the following (unofficially linked) CFJ barring trigon. > > "If the statement in the first CFJ contained in this message is judged > > PARADOXICAL, and that judgement stands for seven days, R. Lee may win the > > game by announcement" > > Gratuitous: > > R. Lee emself admits that the first CFJ is basically identical to CFJ > 3828. I believe this means it is IRRELEVANT because the case "can be > trivially determined from the outcome of another [...] judicial case > that was not itself judged IRRELEVANT". > > -- > Jason Cobb
Gratuitous: Some players have argued that the original CFJ is not about actions, this one unambiguously is. Since the game impact of the CFJ rulings would be different, I don't think it can be trivially determined, nor is it IRRELEVANT. Additionally, someone has now attempted to perform the described action and this CFJ is now directly relevant to gamestate. Another reason to not rule IRRELEVANT. -- nch
