==============================  CFJ 1934  ==============================

    Hello!

========================================================================

Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  Iammars
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  pikhq
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  Pavitra
Judgement:                              IRRELEVANT

========================================================================

History:

Called by ais523:                       04 May 2008 17:50:28 GMT
Assigned to Iammars:                    04 May 2008 21:28:10 GMT
Iammars recused:                        16 May 2008 05:18:57 GMT
Assigned to pikhq:                      16 May 2008 05:34:54 GMT
pikhq recused:                          30 May 2008 07:28:00 GMT
Assigned to Pavitra:                    30 May 2008 07:32:05 GMT
Judged IRRELEVANT by Pavitra:           31 May 2008 16:50:52 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

The precedent of CFJs 1883 and 1884 is that when a statement cannot have a
truth-value assigned to it (in the case of those CFJs, it was because the
statement was a question), it must be judged as UNDECIDABLE, and Rule 591/26
backs this up. Since the time of those CFJs, that rule has been amended only
by proposals 5476, 5470 and 5425; 5476 merely fixed a typo in the word
"Rulekeepor" and therefore has no material affect on the outcome of those
CFJs; and proposals 5425 and 5470 only have an effect in the case where the
statement that the inquiry CFJ is called on is actually a question, and the
statement that this CFJ is filed on is not a question. The statement on which
the CFJ is filed is in fact an interjection, and therefore "not capable of
being accurately described as either false or true" (quote from rule 591/26)
and "cannot be accurately described as either false or true" (in the wording
of CFJ 1883's verdict). This precedent shows that the UNDECIDABLE verdict is
correct; also, none of the other possible verdicts are appropriate: TRUE and
FALSE are not appropriate because those verdicts make no logical sense when
describing an interjection, IRRELEVANT is inappropriate, because the outcome
of this CFJ determines whether the CFJ I am currently filing has a chance of
becoming a tortoise (and thus is relevant to the game), and UNDETERMINED is
inappropriate; the statement is not at all nonsensical, and is not too vague,
as "Hello!" has a clear, established meaning (it is certainly less vague than
nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk
which is, according to CFJ 1846a, 'an established word
with an established definition'), and it is not the case that "the information
available to the judge is insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE,
and UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate" because FALSE and TRUE are both
clearly inappropriate as judgements, whereas precedent shows that UNDECIDABLE
is appropriate as a judgement, and the information in this evidence section is
available to the Judge, who therefore has sufficient information to be able to
decide which of those three statements is inappropriate.

========================================================================

Judge Pavitra's Arguments:

As this "statement" is not regarding the possibility or legality of a
rule-defined action, it could not become a tortoise even if I were to
enter a judgement of UNDECIDABLE. Therefore a judgement of IRRELEVANT
is appropriate.

The caller cites the precedent of CFJs 1883-4, which implies that
UNDECIDABLE would also be appropriate. However, those cases' statements
could at least arguably be read as inquiring on possibility (though I
am not sure I am able actually to parse them), whereas "Hello!" cannot,
by any stretch of the imagination.

========================================================================