On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I CFJ on the following statement: The message sent by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > on "Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:16:23 +0000" (see evidence 1) was successful in > initiating a CFJ. > > I argue for a FALSE judgement in this case. The statement in the message > is clearly an inquiry case. Rule 591 (see evidence 2) governs inquiry > cases. In Rule 591, we see that, "the initiator is unqualified to be > assigned as judge of the case." > > The message in question clearly does not indicate who sent the message. > Without knowing who sent the message, there is no way to ensure that the > initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. For all we > know, Sir Toby was the sender of the message. Since he was assigned as > judge of the resulting CFJ, it is possible that he was illegally > assigned as judge to that CFJ.
I don't think it follows that since the assignment of the CFJ might have been illegal that the CFJ could not have been initiated at all; CotC Murphy certainly knows whether e sent the message purporting to initiate the CFJ emself, so it definitely wasn't impossible that e could assign it to a player e knew didn't send it. Of course, in this case if e didn't send the message than e didn't assign it to someone e could be absolutely sure didn't send it, but the CotC's actions after a CFJ has been initiated shouldn't be retroactively relevant to whether it was initiated in the first place. And, of course, when Murphy attempted to assign the case to you, you knew for sure whether that assignment was possible; the fact that you claimed to assign a judgment to the case should be taken as evidence that you believed to be assigned to judge it. Of course, since we don't have a truthiness rule anymore it's not actually against the rules for you to claim to assign judgment to a case you don't believe you're the judge of.
