Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> This is just as nonsensical a claim as you being a pineapple (both
>> are clearly false, but both attempt to adjust the rules' vision of
>> the world and our behaviours)
> The difference between the two is that one is Agoran law (CFJ-1),
> while the pineapple issue, which you claim is "clearly false", is
> not false in a way that Agoran law can say it's false, because it's
> not covered by the rules.
The rules say that Judgements should be made in accordance with
logical reasoning (R991), and common sense (R217). Both of these
would instantly determine that you are not a pineapple. Similarly,
these are the only way in which the CFJ-1 claim could be determined to
be false. (How else would you do it?)
> It's a question of scope of the rules to apply to real world. You
> say a CFJ on pineappleness should be FALSE ("Real world evidence is
> overwhelming that pineapples don't send email, using the common
> language clause of definitions.") and I say it should DISMISSED
> ("Agoran law doesn't have any procedures, rules, or methods of
> gathering evidence on who is or isn't a pineapple, so the law can't
> interfere with a person's right/privilege to deem emself a
> pineapple, if there's a private contract that hinges on determining
> pineappleness, the contract better have a specific way of pinapple
> determination or I'll dismiss it as a private matter allowable by
> R101").
Your argument that "Agoran law doesn't have any procedures..." is
false: we are allowed to use common sense and logical reasoning.
But, because the rules don't have anything to say about being a
pineapple, it should be dismissed on the grounds that
iii) The Statement does not relate to a matter relevant to the
Rules.
(not because we can't determine whether or not you're a pineapple).
However, we just need to make the matter relevant, by passing a rule
stating that
"All Players must eat all pineapples they encounter."
Then the matter of your being a pineapple couldn't be dimissed for
being irrelevant. In that situation, we would judge FALSE a CFJ
alleging you to be a pineapple because you are not a pineapple, and no
rule, no rule-mandated legal fiction, or gloss on a rule says any
different.
> I see where your argument comes from, I think it comes down, a
> priori, to two reasonable ways to judge. Is there case law to
> support one or the other? Precedents are mixed (and pre-new-R101
> anyway). Looking through CFJ archives, there are several DISMISSED
> judgements on these grounds ("London is the capital of England"),
> the only one I can find that wasn't dismissed was your judgment on
> me being a politician, which I very respectfully disagreed with your
> reasoning but not the conclusion, because I had previously deemed
> myself to be a politician :). Absent rules clarification, I'm
> eagerly waiting to see which direction new case law and judgements
> take us.
I think dimissing "claims of fact that are only to do with the real
world" is perfectly reasonable on grounds of relevance. This action
has nothing to do with legal fictions.
Michael.
