On Wed, 2026-05-27 at 07:15 -0400, Gregory Hayes via agora-business wrote: > > On May 25, 2026, at 3:26 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-business > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > CFJ, barring ais523: A rule reading "Anyone CAN cause this rule to amend > > itself by announcement." was created on or about Sat, 25 Apr 2026 > > 13:13:08 -0400. > > > > I petition the Arbitor to not assign this case to Janet either. > [snip] > > I call for judgement on the following statements and submit said CFJs > to the Referee: > > "It is LEGAL for the Arbitor to assign Janet to the quoted CFJ." > "If Janet were to favor the quoted CFJ, it would be LEGAL for the > Arbitor to assign Janet to the quoted CFJ." > > And just for fun, I CFJ on this statement, too (also submitted to the > Referee): > > "The Arbitor MAY assign a player other than emself to judge the > quoted CFJ."
It looks like I'm the least busy judge at the moment (quite possibly because at least some of the recent CFJs have been about my actions and thus people were unwilling to assign me to them). As such, I number these CFJs 4150, 4151, and 4152 respectively, and assign all of them to myself. (I haven't really looked at these yet, so it may take some time to judge them.) > Arguments: > === > These CFJs all turn not on the rules, but on Regulation AA0, > "Obligations on the Arbitor". This is part of the Arbitor's > administrative regulations, which Rule 2630, "The Administrative > State", forbids the Arbitor from violating. > > The first paragraph of Regulation AA0 forbids the Arbitor from > assigning a CFJ to a judge who has a clear conflict of interest. > Since the quoted CFJ is about a scam and Janet is one of the > perpetrators of that scam, I believe that this is trivially > fulfilled, and so the Arbitor SHALL NOT assign Janet to this CFJ. The > first CFJ is therefore FALSE. > > The second CFJ is more interesting. The second paragraph of AA0 > requires the Arbitor to prioritize assigning CFJs to players > interested in judging, and then goes on to define who those players > are. The third paragraph says that, "the above notwithstanding", the > Arbitor MAY assign a player who has favored a CFJ as judge. > > It seems quite likely that "the above" was intended only to apply to > the second paragraph - favoring a CFJ is clearly intended as a > mechanism by which a player can make themselves "interested in > judging" one CFJ in particular, rather than CFJs generally. However, > if taken literally, the notwithstanding clause clearly includes the > first paragraph in its scope. Therefore, players who have favored a > CFJ are exempt from the conflict of interest clause, and the second > CFJ is TRUE. > > The third CFJ is honestly mostly for fun. As Janet's scam gives em > (along with ais523) considerable power over the game and its other > players, one could argue that ALL players have a clear conflict of > interest in this case. In this case, the notwithstanding clause would > allow the Arbitor to assign the case to emself (or the Referee, but e > is barred from this case) but not to any other player! I have no idea > whether this is a reasonable interpretation or not, I leave that to > the judge's discretion. > === -- ais523 Referee
