On 1/29/2019 7:52 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2019-01-29 at 07:49 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Several I think, but the results are mixed. ("[X] is/is not a
player" is the most common phrase in CFJ statements after all).
How does it compare to "This is a CFJ"?
(Admittedly, the numbers on that one are somewhat deflated by the fact
that many of them turned out not to be.)
No contest. I get 14 for "is/is not a CFJ" and something over 60 for the
playerhood question (half of those are for non-natural players in the
partnership era, but even with natural persons only, playerhood wins).
Because many people like to try to loophole registration and call a CFJ as
their first "move" (by way of introduction, I guess?) over time we made the
standard pretty weak so most attempts work. Used to be much stricter, when
I first joined, the standard was that the potential player had to literally
"request registration" and my own registration caused a CFJ because, when I
joined, I said (clearly) "I register" instead of "I request to be
registered" and even that was controversial by the standards of the time:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1263
I'm not sure the deflation is a huge factor in the difference - most
Arbitors seem to have left things judged not-CFJ in the archives with ID
numbers (I know I did) though they'd probably leave off ones that seemed
really trivially false.
