Why? Cause you don't personally like it?
On 17/07/2008, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2065 >>> >>> ============================== CFJ 2065 ============================== >>> >>> Sgeo has won today or yesterday (relative to the initiation of >>> this CFJ). >>> >>> ======================================================================== >> >> Let's start some controversy! >> >> Judgement: >> >> For reference: First, Sgeo's statement of intent: >> >> With Agoran Consent, I intend to act on behalf of Agora to award a win to >> myself >> and all persons who support my acting on behalf of Agora in this way. >> >> And eir allged action: >> >> With Agoran Consent, I act on behalf of Agora to award myself and all >> supporters a Win. >> >> -- >> The first issue is whether the statement of intent "unambiguously >> descri[s] both the action and the method". The method (Agoran Consent) >> is correctly described. Whether the action is correctly described >> depends on whether "all persons who support my acting on behalf of >> Agora in this way" is unambiguous. >> >> Precedent in CFJ 1334 (referenced by root's arguments) has held that a >> statement of intent is ambiguous when it is missing an essential >> parameter for the action in question that will need to be assigned >> when the action is completed. Arguably, who actually supports the >> action is an essential parameter here that is so missing at the time >> of the statement of intent. Allowing arbitrary incorporation of >> volatile essential parameters would eviscerate the intent of the >> rules' requirement that the action be unambiguously specified in the >> statement of intent, for a clever conspiracy could completely change >> the action allegedly intended after the statement of intent. Now, this >> case is not so bad because Sgeo does not control eir parameter. And, >> indeed, some uncertainty is inherent from statements of intent because >> the rules give latitude as to when exactly they are resolved. But the >> ambiguity of Sgeo's intent rises well above that level, as the entire >> contents of the most essential parameter of the action are determined >> after the statement of intent. >> >> Therefore I judge FALSE. >> > With 2 Support, I intend to appeal this judgement. >
