On Jun 23, 2013, at 2:29 PM, woggle wrote: > I judge CFJ 3339 FALSE. > > ... > > It has been generally uncontroverisal to resolve conflicts in rules and > similar documents not handled using the usual precedences as UNDECIDABLE, even > though the judgment of UNDECIDABLE is not appropriate when true or false is.
All right, let me make sure I understand this judgement. Under the conditions described in the statement of CFJ 3339, if a CFJ were called on the statement "It is LEGAL to shout 'CREAMPUFF' if and only if it is ILLEGAL to shout 'CREAMPUFF'" (call this statement LIFF!L), then FALSE would be an inappropriate judgement, meaning that from Agora's point of view, LIFF!L would be false, despite its presence in the rules. Although the self-contradictory statement in the rules is considered false, there is nonetheless considered to be a paradox here, meaning that if a CFJ were called on the statement "It is LEGAL to shout 'CREAMPUFF'" (call this statement L), TRUE and FALSE would be inappropriate and UNDECIDABLE would be appropriate. Do you agree with the above paragraph? I find this judgement surprising, since I expected that if Agora considered statement L to be undecidable, it would consider statement LIFF!L to be true. (You're sure you didn't mean to judge CFJ 3339 TRUE?) —Machiavelli
