On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Additionally, wouldn't a finding of UNDETERMINED cause a split in the > > gamestate around the question of whether or not comex wins? > > Unfortunate perhaps, but I prefer not to judge based on convenience of > implications.
Undetermined is a really annoying judgement. I've triggered it with Big Brother; since it doesn't do anything, it's not problematic, but what if I tried to, say, initiate a CFJ? Only persons can initiate CFJs. The courts have refused to answer whether or not Big Brother is a person, so the gamestate would be split until manually resolved or judged differently. > A compromise offer: nkep is clearly not understandable to most Agorans, > and thus the burden falls onto the users of the term to show it is > an action. If they can provide evidence in four days that nkep is an > action (e.g. a copy of a contract, with reasonably acceptable evidence > dated to before the CFJ in question), we can find otherwise, else we'll > find FALSE. We can't Order this (no Orders anymore) but we can post the > request... If I *right now*, to the PF, defined nkep as "deregister" (not claiming to have defined it beforehand), would TRUE then become appropriate for this appeal? Of course, that would make appeal of my other CFJ appropriate... would nkep, on account of its being a nonsense word, still be nonsensical despite being defined?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
