> On Jul 20, 2026, at 12:21 PM, msh210 via agora-business > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I just wrote, to agora-business: >> ais523 wrote, in part: >>>> I call for judgement on the following statements: >>>> >>>> "There is exactly one CFJ with the ID number 4150." >>>> "There is a CFJ with the ID number 4155." >>>> >>>> I submit these CFJs to the Referee, as this is somewhat urgent (it >>>> determines how the judgements of these CFJs should be scored) and >>>> the Referee is currently much more active than the Arbitor. >>>> >>>> I submit the following arguments: >>>> === >>>> The issue at hand here is that, while Rule 991 allows for the >>>> Arbitor to assign ID numbers to CFJs, it does not place any sort of >>>> restriction on what these ID numbers are, nor does any other rule. >>>> ID numbers for RULES are explicitly required to be unique, but the >>>> same is never applied to CFJs. The rule also explicitly prevents >>>> the Arbitor from assigning a new ID number to a CFJ that already >>>> has one. >>>> >>>> In this case, I mistakenly assigned a CFJ an ID number that was >>>> already in use. Upon discovering the error, I attempted to assign >>>> an unused ID number instead. Rule 991 is clear that my second >>>> attempt succeeded only if my first attempt failed. Unfortunately, >>>> while it would be extremely inconvenient for everyone if my first >>>> attempt succeeded and we had two CFJ 4150s, I can't find any >>>> textual support for that in the rules. >>>> === >> <snip> >>> Gratuitous arguments: rule 2713 does place a restriction on the >>> number required (it has to be "in sequence" within reasonable >>> definitions), but it's a SHALL-type restriction so it doesn't prevent >>> assignment of a duplicate number working. >> <snip> >>> I assign the CFJ with statement "There is exactly one CFJ with the ID >>> number 4150." the ID number 4158 (due to the ambiguity with numbers >>> 4150-4157 inclusive) and assign it to msh210. >>> >>> I assign the CFJ with statement "There is a CFJ with the ID number >>> 4155." the ID number 4159 and assign it to msh210. >> >> "ID" (R991) has a common-sense interpretation of "something that can be >> used to identify" and thus of uniqueness. For example, English >> Wikipedia's "ID" page, https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1361509704 , >> gives "a symbol which uniquely identifies an object or record" as its >> explanation for "ID". >> >> This common-sense interpretation would seem to be in conflict with >> R2713's "officers may choose whether to include or exclude in the >> numbering sequence [of ID numbers] entities whose proposal or CFJ >> status is disputed or unclear" which by effect allows for potential >> duplication. >> >> Per R1030, the higher-powered rule takes precedence in a conflict >> between rules. R1030 does not say this is only a conflict between >> explicit aspects of rules. In the present case, we have a *common- >> sense interpretation* of R991 (power 2) conflicting with an *effect* of >> R2713 (power 1). >> >> I assign the judgement TRUE to CFJ 4158, "There is exactly one CFJ with >> the ID number 4150.". >> >> I assign the judgement FALSE to CFJ 4159, "There is a CFJ with the ID >> number 4155.". >> >> Yours very truly, >> >> msh210 > > Sorry!! I got the logic backward. I meant for CFJs 4158 and 4159 to > be judged TRUE. I don't know whether the above message went through > to agora-business list. If so, I self-file a motion to reconsider CFJ > 4159, and recommend it be judged TRUE. If it did not go through, I > assign the judgement TRUE both to CFJ 4158 and to CFJ 4159. > > Yours, > msh210
I temporarily deputize for the Arbitor to assign CFJ 4159 to msh210 (again). - Galle, Champion and Speaker
