By saying there's insufficient information, you imply that you accept the bid as POSSIBLE in the first place, because if the bid wasn't a bid at all, the answer would be FALSE no matter what.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Statement: "were Gaelan’s bid of i on Quazie’s zombie auction still in > place, it would have won." > > This is a fairly tragic judgement for me to give because while I fully > understand the intent of calling it and would love to entertain the idea - > due to how it's formed, DISMISS is the judgement that I must give it. > > The statement is in fact impossible to know at the time of calling it > because it involves knowledge of some uncertain future event: What if > Quazie just un-zombiefies before the Auction is over? He could - at any > moment - by just setting his own Master switch to himself by announcement. > Likewise, any other player could deregister and their bid would cease to be > such. > > Therefore, since insufficient information exists to make a judgement, the > verdict is DISMISS. > > Of course, this is assuming that Gaelan's bid of a value of i is a bid in > the first place (so that it could win), which it may or may not be. > > But, if it weren't, then DISMISS would still be appropriate, because then > this CFJ would be a question about bogus. > > So, regardless of the matter of if Gaelan's bid is a bid in the first > place, which could win or not, DISMISS is appropriate, unfortunately. > > However, for the sake of completeness, here is a CFJ precedent which gives > light to the intent of this issue: CFJ 855 ( > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?855), however I will give > no official verdict/comment stemming from it because it's not what this CFJ > is about. > > VERDICT: DISMISS >
