============================  Appeal 2086b  ============================


Panelist:                               woggle
Decision:                               REMAND


Panelist:                               root
Decision:                               REMAND


Panelist:                               Taral
Decision:                               REMAND

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

History:

Appeal initiated:                       16 Sep 2008 19:10:36 GMT
Assigned to woggle (panelist):          20 Sep 2008 19:24:58 GMT
Assigned to root (panelist):            20 Sep 2008 19:24:58 GMT
Assigned to Taral (panelist):           20 Sep 2008 19:24:58 GMT
root moves to REMAND:                   26 Sep 2008 21:30:37 GMT
Taral moves to REMAND:                  27 Sep 2008 08:26:48 GMT
woggle moves to REMAND:                 27 Sep 2008 08:48:02 GMT
Final decision (REMAND):                02 Oct 2008 15:45:33 GMT

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

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

How about this interpretation, instead?

There are an infinite number of instants between any two points in
time (including two instants).  Every access and modification of the
gamestate must be allocated to its own instant.  Therefore, the CFJ
rules can only insert a new instant immediately before or after any
other one (e.g. the initiation of the CFJ), but it cannot plop an
access on top of an instant that's already being used to change the
gamestate.  So the statement "<fact about the gamestate> at instant X"
is undefined.  Statements like "I am doing X" are, however, defined,
because whether I am doing X is not part of the gamestate.

In other words, the actual process by which a CFJ comes into existence
is undefined, and indeed may be simulated in a number of ways-- as a
Python script simulating Agora that creates a new CFJ object in
memory, or a human brain conceptualizing the creation of a CFJ.

Annnnnnyyyway.
I hope you're still reading this, because the above has absolutely
nothing to do with the case.

CFJs 2086-7 have nothing to do with a CFJ existing.  They have to do
with the action of initiating being in progress, which is true only
*while* it is being initiated.  Certainly the statement of the CFJ is
false now, because ehird is not right this second CFJing on a
statement.

So the question is whether actions happen truly simultaneously (the
actions are being done at the same time), in which case the statements
would both be TRUE, or whether they can be separated in legal time, in
which case both would be FALSE.  I support the latter.

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