On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> First off, I judge this CFJ TRUE. Iff the CFJ exists, it must be true, so
> that seems like a pretty safe action. Now for the interesting bit.
This has come up from time-to-time and the logic has always been
overturned (if it's the sole logic used for existence - you used other,
complete logic so that's fine). Basically, if a CFJ finds itself
not-to-exist (its own existence judged FALSE), it's fine. It still
keeps its number (numbers aren't strictly regulated) and people still
refer to it in future precedents, so despite it "not existing" it's
part of the overall stare decisis (with future judges realizing that
it's imperfect because it couldn't be challenged/mooted etc.)
If it's found not to exist before it's assigned, for a trivial reason
(e.g. it wasn't paid for) that's a bit different.
> The ambiguity as to the caller is far more disturbing. However, I see nothing
> in the rules that requires this information to be clear.
This has caused big problems in the past. If someone uses an unknown
email address and says "I claim I'm an current player and do X" there's
no clear way to resolve the ambiguity or fix things. I argued once that
in Rule 478:
a person performs that action by unambiguously and
clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it.
that "announcing that e performs it" fails if the "e" is ambiguous. Others
didn't buy that argument (and what if it's unclear retroactively like what
Alexis did last year with Ribbons?) - maybe R478 is a place to put a fix.
