> On Mar 5, 2024, at 3:51 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 2024-03-05 at 15:45 +0000, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On Mar 5, 2024, at 4:37 AM, Aris via agora-business >> <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: >>> >>> Erm... that CFJ doesn't do what you want it to. CFJs are supposed to be >>> statements, not questions, and interpreting something out of context is >>> different from interpreting it in context. >> >> Without commenting on the rest of the situation (I haven’t looked into >> it), we have precedent that CFJs phrased as questions are fair game; see >> CFJ 3505. > > Well, the precedent of CFJ 3505 also states that CFJ 3505 was never > validly judged, although the CFJ record seems to ignore that. (FWIW, I > disagree and think that that part of the judgement was given validly, > but is wrong.) > > -- > ais523
Oh, interesting: I suppose to be a “past judgement” for four-factors purposes, something does actually have to be a validly assigned judgment to a CFJ. Although if you’re being *truly* pedantic, the term “judgement” refers only to one of the six valid judgements; there’s arguably no four-factors duty to consider the surrounding waffle, which has interesting implications for the classic “trivially FALSE, but to answer your real question:” judgements. Huh. Gaelan
