As stated, this CFJ is trivially FALSE because no fine CAN be imposed for
anything. Maybe there is a different way to pose the CFJ that would be
PARADOXICAL though?
> On Jun 16, 2019, at 1:25 AM, Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Oooh look, I broke my Oath. How unexpected!
>
> I point my finger at Jason Cobb for the Class 0 Crime of Oathbreaking.
>
> I fully admit that I am guilty of the above accusation.
>
>
> [Also, sorry for all of the CFJ's I have created lately. I really don't mean
> to overload the people who have to deal with them.]
>
> I initiate a Call for Judgment on the following statement: "The investigator
> of the Finger-pointing done in this message CAN impose a fine on Jason Cobb
> for the Crime of Oathbreaking."
>
> Evidence:
>
> {
>
> Excerpt from Rule 2450 ("Pledges"):
>
> If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or
> refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the pledge
> within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of
> Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states
> otherwise. The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless the
> pledge explicitly states otherwise.
>
>
> Excerpt from Rule 2557 ("Removing Blots"):
>
> When the rules authorize an investigator to impose the Cold Hand
> of Justice for a violation, e CAN do so by levying a fine on the
> perp with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 2x the base value of the
> violation, within the following guidelines:
> - If the violation is described by the rules as a Class N crime,
> then N is the base value; otherwise the base value is 2.
>
> }
>
> Arguments:
>
> {
>
> Under Rule 2450, I have violated my Oath by sending the message in which I
> called this CFJ. The Oath explicitly states that the Oath was under penalty
> of a Class 0 Crime. Thus, under Rule 2450, I am guilty of the Class 0 Crime
> of Oathbreaking. Thus, under Rule 2478 ("Vigilante Justice", not quoted
> here), the investigator SHALL (and CAN, by CFJ precedent) impose the Cold
> Hand of Justice on the perp (me).
>
> I note that the Rules do not explicitly state that N in a Class N crime must
> be positive, or even an integer. I thus argue that a Class 0 Crime is a thing
> that can happen.
>
> Since the crime committed was a Class 0 Crime, the base value for the crime
> (in Rule 2557's parlance) is 0. Thus, under Rule 2557, the investigator CAN
> do so by levying a fine on me with a minimum of 1 (Blot) and a maximum of 0
> (Blots). This is a mathematical impossibility. There is no valid number of
> blots that the investigator CAN fine me, yet the Rules assert that e CAN.
>
> At this point, I will attempt to argue what I think the resolution should be.
>
> I think this is clearly not IRRELEVANT. I don't believe it should be
> INSUFFICIENT, as I have (hopefully) provided everything that supports my
> argument. I don't think it should be DISMISS.
>
> That leaves TRUE, FALSE, and PARADOXICAL.
>
> The following is admittedly somewhat shaky, but here it goes:
>
> I know of no rules or precedent that states what happens when the Rules
> require a mathematical impossibility. The Rules also do not state whether or
> not the rules of math take precedence over the Rules.
>
> Regarding TRUE: The Rules define "CAN" as "Attempts to perform the described
> action are successful." This does not describe applying a fine here, as there
> is no valid number of Blots that I could be fined that would be permitted
> under Rule 2557. Thus any attempts to do so would NOT be successful.
>
> Regarding FALSE: I think this might be a valid outcome, but I also think that
> the Rules explicitly state that the investigator CAN do so, and that should
> be taken into account.
>
> Regarding PARADOXICAL: I think this might be a valid outcome. The Rules state
> that a person CAN do something that is mathematically impossible to do. That
> sounds like a paradox to me :).
>
> }
>
> Jason Cobb
>
>> On 6/16/19 12:46 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>> I pledge, on penalty of a Class 0 Crime, to not send messages to public fora
>> for the next 24 hours.
>>
