why don't we just judge this cfj irrelevant because no consequences can be imposed for any crimes anyway, and nobody would sign such a stupid contract as the one at issue here, and then moot the issue by passing a fix proposal
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 1:34 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why would this go to moot when we could just endlessly group-file > motions to reconsider? > > Jason Cobb > > On 6/20/19 11:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I feel like we're hitting a binary decision point with a split group of > > players so I'm guessing this is Moot-bound regardless (FWIW, I'm with > > R. Lee on this one so far). > > > > On 6/20/2019 7:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > >> And to think this all could have been avoided if people had just kept > >> my original judgement and take the fall for interpreting the rules so > >> as to proscribe unregulated actions as they clearly do. > >> > >> On 6/20/19 8:38 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > >>> I think to consider a forbidden interpretation and then explicitly > >>> reject it probably would not run afoul of this SHALL NOT. > >>> > >>> Jason Cobb > >>> > >>> On 6/20/19 7:56 PM, omd wrote: > >>>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> 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. > >>>> FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically > >>>> undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient. > >>>> > >>>> Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft > >>>> would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is > >>>> still based on the forbidden interpretation. > >> > -- >From R. Lee
