Kerim Aydin wrote:
>All right. I propose that we, as the appeals panel, post the following
>message in the PF:
I consent to that judgement and argument.
-zefram
Taral wrote:
>Your arguments above are about UNDECIDABLE vs. IRRELEVANT. I am
>arguing about UNDECIDABLE vs. FALSE. Did I miss something?
I have an argument for TRUE: rule 2158 only places the obligation to not
assign an inappropriate judgement on judges. Anyone who is not a judge is
not bound by
On Nov 12, 2007 8:24 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All right. I propose that we, as the appeals panel, post the following
> message in the PF:
>
> --
>
> The judge accepted the caller's arguments for UNDECIDABLE, which
> depend in part on FALS
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Taral wrote:
> Your arguments above are about UNDECIDABLE vs. IRRELEVANT. I am
> arguing about UNDECIDABLE vs. FALSE. Did I miss something?
I'm sorry, you are correct. I thought I was clear that I was arguing
that UNDECIDABLE was reasonable, full stop. I think it is, but *n
On Nov 12, 2007 3:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I describe exactly what I found reasonable earlier in the thread,
> since you haven't refuted those points, I'll leave it to you to look
> them up and do so. -Goethe
Your arguments above are about UNDECIDABLE vs. IRRELEVANT. I am
a
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Taral wrote:
> I'm not exactly sure how you find it reasonable. UNDECIDABLE and FALSE
> are mutually exclusive determinations. The rules are very clear about
> the veracity timing issue that Zefram noted, and an appeal is the
> correct place for issues that the judge neglected
On Nov 12, 2007 3:01 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay: I support an appeals judgement of SUSTAIN on the grounds that
> Murphy's judgement is reasonable.
I'm not exactly sure how you find it reasonable. UNDECIDABLE and FALSE
are mutually exclusive determinations. The rules are ver
On Nov 12, 2007 4:01 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, I note that it looks like it's not just the appeals judgement
> itself that has to be consented to, but the "message" of action (e.g.
> the whole text of the message).
This is the case for unanimous agreement as well. We've b
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> This is the reason for "or with the majority agreement of the members
> and the consent of the CotC", although I believe the clause has yet to
> be exercised.
Okay: I support an appeals judgement of SUSTAIN on the grounds that
Murphy's judgement is reasona
On Nov 12, 2007 3:30 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, it seems appeals panels now need unanimous (not majority)
> support for a decision, thus allowing a single activist on the judicial
> panel to hold up a majority, so the only thing to do is remand with an
> argument countera
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Taral wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007 1:31 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'll just note in passing that it seems highly unusual to remand a
>> case simply because the judge interpreted the statement in a way that
>> matches or is close to what was intended.
>
> It's al
On Nov 12, 2007 1:31 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll just note in passing that it seems highly unusual to remand a
> case simply because the judge interpreted the statement in a way that
> matches or is close to what was intended.
It's also highly unusual for a judgement to result
On Nov 12, 2007 2:15 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007 7:25 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > perhaps you want to summarize
> > >your side, and I will add my counterarguments, and we'll REMAND to the
> > >judge for further c
On Nov 12, 2007 7:25 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > perhaps you want to summarize
> >your side, and I will add my counterarguments, and we'll REMAND to the
> >judge for further consideration? -Goethe
>
> I consent to a REMAND judgement.
I als
Zefram wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> But didn't e choose already, and if either was appropriate, shouldn't we
>> SUSTAIN eir choice
>
> Yes. If we are in no doubt that the original judgement was appropriate
> then we are obliged to SUSTAIN, even if there were other appropriate
> judgements avail
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>But didn't e choose already, and if either was appropriate, shouldn't we
>SUSTAIN eir choice
Yes. If we are in no doubt that the original judgement was appropriate
then we are obliged to SUSTAIN, even if there were other appropriate
judgements available that we would prefer t
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Which would mean that Murphy could perfectly well deliver eir UNDECIDABLE
>> judgement, even if irrelevant would have also been reasonable. Right?
>
> If both are appropriate then e has the choice between them.
But didn't e choose alread
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Which would mean that Murphy could perfectly well deliver eir UNDECIDABLE
>judgement, even if irrelevant would have also been reasonable. Right?
If both are appropriate then e has the choice between them.
>Should I clip out your original paragraph as your "remand argument"
I
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> The fact that all of the judges felt that
>> they had the duty to judge without dismissal for irrelevance
>
> This is an unsupported jump. A judge can perfectly well give a
> substantive judgement without fee
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The fact that all of the judges felt that
>they had the duty to judge without dismissal for irrelevance
This is an unsupported jump. A judge can perfectly well give a
substantive judgement without feeling that e has a duty to do so.
>
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Zefram wrote:
> CFJ 1677 doesn't go into the question of relevance at all. Dismissal was
> not mandatory for irrelevant CFJs.
If even one judge in these cases had dismissed for irrelevance, I'd see
that your case was supported. The fact that all of the judges felt that
they
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>On deeper inspection, I don't think precedent agrees with you. Recently,
>CFJ 1677 supports judging based on the "far side" of the boundary, not the
>near side.
CFJ 1677 doesn't go into the question of relevance at all. Dismissal was
not mandatory for irrelevant CFJs.
-zef
On Nov 11, 2007 10:00 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> refer to "this CFJ" in a way that would be trivially dismissed if
> Eris's current assertion on timing were part of rules or custom.
> None of the judges questioned the timing or supported Eris's
> assertion. Of particular interest
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> That doesn't mean that (iii) wasn't applicable, only that (ii) was
> more obviously applicable. I feel that I have a good insight into
> the thought processes of the judge, too.
Be that as it may, your leanings as to what was more "obviously
applicable" ar
Goethe wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007, Taral wrote:
My argument hinges on timing. I read "at the time the CFJ is called"
to limit the scope of relevance to the state that exists on that
boundary. I believe it is within the authority of this panel and the
judge to exclude the CFJ itself from that st
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007, Taral wrote:
> My argument hinges on timing. I read "at the time the CFJ is called"
> to limit the scope of relevance to the state that exists on that
> boundary. I believe it is within the authority of this panel and the
> judge to exclude the CFJ itself from that state and t
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> This argument is more convincing. As Eris noted, I think it could be
> dodged with a statement like "It will be permissible for the judge of
> this case to judge its question on veracity FALSE." The existing
> statement could also be interpreted in this
comex wrote:
On Sunday 11 November 2007, Zefram wrote:
I still believe
that a judgement of "IRRELEVANT" is appropriate in this instance,
since CFJs cannot and should not be allowed to create their own
relevance given the wording of the rule.
I would argue that IRRELEVANT is not appropriate ev
On Sunday 11 November 2007, Zefram wrote:
> I still believe
> that a judgement of "IRRELEVANT" is appropriate in this instance,
> since CFJs cannot and should not be allowed to create their own
> relevance given the wording of the rule.
I would argue that IRRELEVANT is not appropriate even ignorin
On Nov 11, 2007 12:57 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see how that reading is supported within the bounds of English
> grammar. The timing clause is clearly bound to "veracity", not to "is
> not relevant".
Another thing that needs fixing, then. This allows a CFJ's judgement
to
> Taral wrote:
> >My argument hinges on timing. I read "at the time the CFJ is called"
> >to limit the scope of relevance to the state that exists on that
> >boundary.
I don't see how that reading is supported within the bounds of English
grammar. The timing clause is clearly bound to "veracity",
On Nov 11, 2007 12:31 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, no, that doesn't work, either. This is getting closer:
>
>Message #1 > "This statement is false."
>Message #2 > "CFJ: The statement in message #1 is false."
>
> but the trick is to cast #2 in terms of performing an acti
On Nov 11, 2007 12:14 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It also separates the permissibility that the CFJ must rule on from
> the permissibility pertaining to assigning that judgement. If it was
> impermissible to judge FALSE at the time the CFJ was called, that
> would make it permissible t
Murphy wrote:
Eris wrote:
On Nov 11, 2007 11:04 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think this self-containedness is what Eris has in mind with suggesting
IRRELEVANT for a paradox which doesn't arise until the CFJ is called,
but
I find that root is correct, the rules aren't written
On Nov 11, 2007 12:15 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>CFJ 2000: This statement is false.
>CFJ 2001: FALSE is an appropriate judgement for CFJ 2000.
I thought more about it, and the result you get is:
CFJ 2000: IRRELEVANT
CFJ 2001: IRRELEVANT/FALSE
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Eris wrote:
On Nov 11, 2007 11:04 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think this self-containedness is what Eris has in mind with suggesting
IRRELEVANT for a paradox which doesn't arise until the CFJ is called, but
I find that root is correct, the rules aren't written as such at the mo
Taral wrote:
>My argument hinges on timing. I read "at the time the CFJ is called"
>to limit the scope of relevance to the state that exists on that
>boundary.
It also separates the permissibility that the CFJ must rule on from
the permissibility pertaining to assigning that judgement. If it was
On Nov 11, 2007 12:08 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In all fairness, I note that this is easily worked around by creating
> two CFJs, the second dependent on the first.
Or not... Hm.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
--
On Nov 11, 2007 11:04 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this self-containedness is what Eris has in mind with suggesting
> IRRELEVANT for a paradox which doesn't arise until the CFJ is called, but
> I find that root is correct, the rules aren't written as such at the moment.
My
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> There is no question in my mind that the veracity of the statement at
> the time the case was initiated *is* relevant to the game. The rule
> places no restrictions on what types, sources, or timeframes of
> relevance are permitted.
Current opinion for dis
> Appellant Goddess Eris's Arguments:
>
> I still believe
> that a judgement of "IRRELEVANT" is appropriate in this instance,
> since CFJs cannot and should not be allowed to create their own
> relevance given the wording of the rule.
Initiator root's counter-arguments:
Regarding "cannot", reread
41 matches
Mail list logo
