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
> 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