On 5/15/20 8:29 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > I call for judgement on this statement: It is both possible and true that a > rule named "A coin award" took the game action of increasing the number of > coins R. Lee owned by 1. > I call for judgement: The above CFJ statement is about the possibility of a > game action so that its caller is eligible to win by paradox if a judgement > of PARADOXICAL is assigned to it for seven days.
Alright, because this is an explicit win attempt, I feel obligated to attempt to poke some holes in it: 1. There no longer exists a rule named "A coin award", so perhaps FALSE on that grounds. 2. Even if the statement is PARADOXICAL, you can still get IRRELEVANT. You may have manufactured relevance to the gamestate, but there are three conditions for IRRELEVANT in R591, and meeting any of them gets you an IRRELEVANT judgement: - not relevant to the game; with your pledge, this condition is not met because of your pledge - overly hypothetical extrapolation of the game; not met, not a hypothetical - trivially determinable from the outcome of another case; this condition is met, it is trivially determinable from CFJ 3828, earning you an IRRELEVANT judgement -- Jason Cobb
