On 11/5/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/5/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > BUS: I say I pseudo-judge (fwd) > > CFJ: The message with subject "BUS: I say I pseudo-judge (fwd)", > message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > that purported to judge CFJs 1774 and 1775) had the effect of > assigning a judgement. > > Arguments: > There are two chief differences between this message and the message > with title "DIS: I say I pseudo-judge": > - This message was sent to a Public Forum. > - Labels in this message contained JUDGEMENT instead of PSUEDO-JUDGEMENT. > > > Nevertheless, the title would, to someone who had not been paying > attention to the Discussion Forum, appear to make the message a > pseudo-judgement. Furthermore, this message does purport that the > court judges the CFJs, but so did the other message. Therefore, I do > not think the message is clear enough to assign judgement.
Gratuitous arguments: Per CFJ 1631, actions cannot be performed in the subject of a message. Pseudo-judging is not a game action, but the word "pseudo-judge" occurs only in the subject. If the subject had read "BUS: I say I judge (fwd)", that alone would not be sufficient to be interpreted as an attempt to assign judgement. So why should the message be interpreted as an attempt to pseudo-judge, or as an ambiguous attempt, based on the subject line alone? -root
