On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Ed Murphy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2443 > > ============================== CFJ 2443 ============================== > > CFJ 2423 is a tortoise. > > ======================================================================== > > Caller: ais523 > > Judge: Yally > Judgement: > > ======================================================================== > > History: > > Called by ais523: 07 Apr 2009 17:49:49 GMT > Assigned to Yally: (as of this message) > > ======================================================================== > > Caller's Arguments: > > I'm not entirely sure if the CFJ in question counts as a tortoise or > not; the question is to whether it's on "the possibility or legality of > a rule-defined action", which I'm not sure about. (The CFJ was not, > incidentally, intended as a paradox-win attempt.) The attempt to amend > rule 2223 was, at the time, certainly a rule-defined action (defined in > two rules, no less); the question is as to whether a question about > which mechanism was used is a question about its possibility or > legality. Also bear in mind that the question was about something that > actually happened; it's certainly indirectly about the possibility or > legality of an action, but I'm not sure if it's direct enough to count. > > ======================================================================== > > Caller's Evidence: > > CFJ 2423 has the text "Murphy's recent attempt to cause Rule 2223 to > amend itself to read 'This rule intentionally left blank' was using the > mechanism specified in rule 2223, rather than the mechanism specified in > the rule created by proposal 6130.", and has had a judgement of > UNDECIDABLE for over two weeks. > > ======================================================================== > > Gratuitous Arguments by root: > > No. Whatever the outcome of CFJ 2423, nobody would have disputed the > possibility or legality of the action on its account, only the success > of the manner in which Murphy attempted it. Since it therefore could > not have provided any answers about the possibility or legality, I > think it unreasonable to consider that to be the subject of the case. > > ======================================================================== > > Gratuitous Arguments by ais523: > > TRUE would certainly have implied that the action was legal; > the current UNDECIDABLE does not, so the CFJ does have at least some > impact on the success of the action (and therefore the possibility of > performing that action with that phrasing). (Also note that I called the > case as part of a linked group trying to establish whether Murphy's > actions succeeded, and exactly in which way they succeeded if they did.) > > ======================================================================== > FALSE; Rule 2110 states that: A tortoise is an inquiry case on the possibility or legality of a rule-defined action. However, CFJ 2423 has determined what has happened, not whether something is legal or whether something is possible to happen.
