We used to explicitly say in the Rules that True/False judgements were equivalent to Yes/No if the statement was phrased as a yes/no question. We repealed that explicit text, but there's some ounce of possibility that precedent would allow it.
The most recent CFJ phrased that way is CFJ 3374, but that was when the yes/no text was in the rule. (If this case isn't withdrawn, the above are gratuitous arguments). On Sun, 21 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > CFJs must be statements, not questions. > > ----Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 11:27 PM, CuddleBeam <[email protected]> > wrote: > Employing the power of Rule 991/17, I submit a Call for Judgement for > the following statement: > > "Can this statement have a Judge?" > > I also opt to bar one person from such procedure. That person is the person > who would successfully become the first Judge of the Call for Judgement > submitted by this message. > > ---- > > I pledge to grant one Shiny (if I have at least one and I am capable of such > a transfer) to the Judge of the CFJ summoned via the content above as > long as rules relevant to CFJs haven't changed since I have announced this > pledge and the barring attempt above had barred someone. > > (I dunno, could be fun lol, and I'm very curious about how this might turn > out.)
