I think the judgment effectively reads into the record this logic from Trigon's recusal:

- I could judge breathing to be a regulated action, but the rules say that I SHALL NOT, so I don't

- I could judge that the Rules do not prohibit contract from the parties breathing, but I think that's clearly wrong and factually incorrect, so I don't.

Trigon, faced with those two options, recused emself.

This judgment (in my reading) says "Yes, both of those argument chains are logically correct. Therefore, I do not accept either of the above conclusions. Considering the remaining options, I judge PARADOXICAL."

I don't think that this judgment reads into the record that the Rules proscribe any unregulated action.

Jason Cobb

On 6/20/19 11:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Yeah, I’d agree with that. It doesn’t seem like that’s what the judge is
doing though. The judge seems to be saying that that interpetation is
*correct*, but that e can’t judge the case on that basis.

-Aris

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 7:38 PM Jason Cobb <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
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.

Reply via email to