I offer this proto for comment.
***
Judge Trigon recused emself believing that no valid judgement could be
entered in this CFJ.[1] As the newly assigned judge, I am required
by Rule
591 to assign to this CFJ a "valid" judgement. The law does not
require me
to assign an "appropriate" judgement, merely a "valid" one.
For the reasons given by Trigon and others, I believe this case
CANNOT be
legally assigned a judgement of TRUE or FALSE. In particular, I
accept the
reasons why those judgements are ILLEGAL in the email chain that
led to
Judge Trigon's recusal.[2]
There are four remaining valid options: IRRELEVANT, DISMISS,
INSUFFICIENT, and PARADOXICAL. It is not appropriate to assign a
judgement
of IRRELEVANT because the CFJ addresses an important unsettled
question
about the nature of regulated actions; it is not appropriate to
assign it a
judgement of INSUFFICIENT because it comes with adequate evidence and
arguement.
That leaves DISMISS and PARADOXICAL as potentially appropriate
judgements. PARADOXICAL is appropriate if the case is logically
undecidable; DISMISS is appropriate if it is undecidable for another
reason.
In my view, this case is logically undecidable and PARADOXICAL is
appropriate.
First, we need to know what it means for a case to be
"undecidable." In
my view, a case is undecidable if it is inappropriate, ILLEGAL, or
IMPOSSIBLE for the judge to assign to it a verdict of TRUE or
FALSE. If an
undecidable case is appropriately judged IRRELEVANT, INSUFFICIENT, or
DISMISS, then the judge SHOULD assign one of those judgements
rather than
PARADOXICAL.
This case is undecidable because, for reasons given by others in
footnote
2, it is ILLEGAL to assign it a judgement of TRUE and ILLEGAL to
assign it
a judgement of FALSE.
The next question is whether this case is "logically" undecidable (and
therefore PARADOXICAL) or not "logically" undecidable (and therefore
DISMISS).
In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of
the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is
prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says
what it
says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of
the same
formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres
in the
formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious
contact, and is
properly considered a logical undecidability.
Judged PARADOXICAL.
-----
[1] Judge Trigon recused emself in this message.
On Jun 17, 2019, at 8:43 PM, Reubejn Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I recuse myself from this case. I really don't think there's any
LEGAL
way to resolve this.
[2] The email chain in question is reproduced here:
On Jun 17, 2019, at 2:29 PM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Both can be easily proven factually incorrect.
Breathing is unregulated because the contract clearly does not allow,
enable, or permit its performance, and the "SHALL NOT" in the
contract does
not limit its performance.
The contract does prohibit breathing; one only needs to look in a
dictionary to prove such things.
To deny either of these would be to publish a factual falsehood,
which
might in itself constitute a violation of Rule 2471 "No Faking".
On 6/17/19 12:20 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
You have two options that I can see (without being guilty of a
crime).
Either
- Breathing is a regulated action, or
- The contract does not prohibit breathing.
Jason Cobb
On 6/17/19 2:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Ah, indeed! So we have our conflict.
I SHALL NOT interpret the rules so as to proscribe unregulated
actions.
The contract mandates a proscription on breathing, which is an
unregulated action.
By these two facts, I cannot come to the obviously correct
conclusion
that the contract proscribes an unregulated action without breaking
rule
2152.
There really is no way out of this, is there?
On 6/17/19 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 6/17/2019 8:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Does a "SHALL NOT" really count as "proscription"? I reiterate
that, assuming a player has been given permission elsewhere, e
still CAN
perform an action that the rules state e SHALL NOT perform.
From the dictionary I get:
Proscribe -
forbid, especially by law.
synonyms: forbid, prohibit, ban, bar, disallow, rule out, embargo,
veto,
make illegal, interdict, outlaw, taboo
"gambling was proscribed"
Since "make illegal" and "prohibit" are capitalized equivalents
for
SHALL
NOT in R2152, that's the interpretation that makes the most
sense to
me.
--
Trigon
