I feel like we're hitting a binary decision point with a split group of
players so I'm guessing this is Moot-bound regardless (FWIW, I'm with
R. Lee on this one so far).
On 6/20/2019 7:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
And to think this all could have been avoided if people had just kept my
original judgement and take the fall for interpreting the rules so as to
proscribe unregulated actions as they clearly do.
On 6/20/19 8:38 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I think to consider a forbidden interpretation and then explicitly reject
it probably would not run afoul of this SHALL NOT.
Jason Cobb
On 6/20/19 7:56 PM, omd wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of
the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is
prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it
says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the
same formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres
in the formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious
contact, and is properly considered a logical undecidability.
FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically
undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient.
Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft
would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is
still based on the forbidden interpretation.
