Doesn't judging a CFJ based on what we plan to do after it kind of go
against the idea of "resolve it as if at the time it was created"?
Also, is it wise to judge CFJs based on political expediency? I do
realize that people just continually voting to overturn judgments isn't
helpful for anyone, but I haven't been broken of my idealism yet.
Jason Cobb
On 6/20/19 11:41 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I’m for this solution. Moots are kinda lousy at consensus building, due to
the limited number of voting options.
-Aris
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 8:39 PM Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote:
why don't we just judge this cfj irrelevant because no consequences can be
imposed for any crimes anyway, and nobody would sign such a stupid contract
as the one at issue here, and then moot the issue by passing a fix proposal
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 1:34 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why would this go to moot when we could just endlessly group-file
motions to reconsider?
Jason Cobb
On 6/20/19 11:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
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.
--
From R. Lee
