On 1/30/2022 11:10 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote:
> I plan to flip my focus to Legacy.
> 
> CFJ: It is not possible under the current ruleset for a CFJ to be destroyed.
> 
> I temporarily deputize for the Arbitor to number the above CFJ #3942 and
> assign it to G.
> 
> I award myself a cyan ribbon.
> 
> (There's a chance proposals may be able to destroy CFJs? If not, maybe a
> way should be made, or maybe this was just a silly thing to do. I'm trying
> :P)


Argument for FALSE (that it's possible for a CFJ to be destroyed):

Rule 2175/9 lists two ways a person CAN make a new CFJ "cease being a
judicial case [CFJ]" (by the phrasing of the statement, we just have to
establish that at least one cfj can be destroyed, so it's fine that it
only works for new CFJs).

If an entity was created "as a cfj" (that is, its whole existence was due
to it being created to be a cfj) and then ceases to be a cfj and has no
further legal effect on the game, it is no longer anything, which is a
reasonable synonym for destroying it.

Moreover, for more complete destruction, a statement like "the message
purporting to initiate a cfj was not sent publicly" could be ratified
without objection.


Arguments for TRUE (that it's not possible to destroy a cfj):

The methods noted above cause something to "cease being a cfj".  But it's
not clear that this "destroys" it.  It could easily be called a "former cfj"



Arguments for
Argument for TRUE, #2:


Judge's Evidence

Rule 2175/9 (Power=1)
Judicial Retraction and Excess

      A new case is a judicial case that has not had any judge assigned
      to it. The initiator of a new case CAN retract it by announcement,
      thus causing it to cease to be a judicial case.

      An excess case is a new case whose initiator previously initiated
      five or more cases during the same week as that case. A person
      SHALL NOT initiate an excess case. The Arbitor CAN refuse an
      excess case by announcement, thus causing it to cease to be a
      judicial case. When e does so, e fulfills any obligations with
      regards to that case.

Reply via email to