ok here's an actually-finished proto judgement for consideration/comment:
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 caller's statement, we 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 is 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 R2175/9 methods noted above cause something to "cease being a cfj".
But it's not clear that this "destroys" it as an "entity". It could
easily be called a "former cfj" and continue to exist. Furthermore, even
if a cfj is clearly ratified out of existence (e.g. ratifying a message as
above), the fact that cfjs are fundamentally advisory ideas means you
can't truly destroy anything about a cfj as a concept/set of ideas, other
than the formal requirements of tracking it.
For example, if a cfj is ratified out of existence, a later judge of a
later cfj can say "the idea expressed in former cfj XXXX was correct so I
assert it here". As long as ideas and history are associated with it, it
would continue to exist as an undestroyed *something* that we can refer
to, even if that something is not a cfj.
Overall conclusion:
I find that the common definition of "destroy" easily encompasses either
of the above possibilties, depending on what the caller meant by
"destroy". So overall, the caller's statement is too unclear to answer
without a refinement of the definition (either in the cfj statement or
provided caller's arguments).
I [proto-] judge DISMISS.
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.
