==============================  CFJ 2094  ==============================

    The statement labeled by the CotC as the CFJ statement for CFJ 2079
    was a CFJ statement called by root.


Caller:                                 G.
Barred:                                 Murphy

Judge:                                  avpx

Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              UNDETERMINED



Called by G.:                           17 Jul 2008 16:34:35 GMT
Assigned to avpx:                       19 Jul 2008 00:38:44 GMT
avpx recused:                           22 Jul 2008 03:09:17 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     25 Jul 2008 07:14:20 GMT
Judged UNDETERMINED by ais523:          29 Jul 2008 14:52:20 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

CotC Murphy took it for granted that "I CFJ on this statement." self-
labeled the whole sentence "I CFJ on this statement" as a CFJ statement,
and that "I CFJ on that statement." referenced a quoted "I CFJ on this

An "announcement which includes the statement to be inquired into" as
required by R591 could apply to a whole sentence, or a clause such as
"this statement" or even just "statement."  root has noted that e believes
eir statement to be generally isomorphic to "This is a CFJ", but to my
memory Agoran custom is that those kinds of CFJs are often prefaced
with "I CFJ on the following: this is a CFJ" so those cases aren't
applicable for this particular question.

The question is whether root (and Quazie) submitted CFJs which clearly
indicated which part of the sentences in question were the "statement".
There's currently no specific standard in the rules for determination,
and the opinion of the CotC on its own might be subject to oversight.
I note that CotC's have in fact rejected/refused to assign judgements
which state "I CFJ on whether X happened" and the like as not clearly
defining or labeling a statement, and they certainly haven't assigned
the whole sentence as a CFJ.

The previous Rule for calling for judgement required "a single clearly-
labeled Statement" to be made and (R991/5).  I think, by Agoran custom
where the rules are silent, this is reasonable.  root and Quazie might
state that the internal self-labeling was clear, though clearly (in
Quazie's case) it was not clear enough as the CotC's interpretation
differed from the caller.  I personally argue for a judgement of FALSE,
that neither sentence sufficiently delimited or clearly labeled
a "CFJ statement" to a standard of clarity that would be reasonable
enough to make it clear what the actual CFJ statement was or was intended
to be (so the actions failed).


Caller's Evidence:

Statements labeled by the CotC as "CFJ statements":




Judge ais523's Arguments:

In CFJs 2094 and 2095, I rule UNDETERMINED, as I have severe trouble
making sense of what the statements of those CFJs actually mean; I
consider the meaning of "called by" in this context sufficiently vague
as to leave the sentences with no real truth value (does it refer to the
person who made the statement, or the person who called the CFJ of which
the text was the statement (in which case ambiguous because more than
one CFJ had that statement), or the person who called the statement
(which does not make much sense), or something else?).

However, I will give my answer to the question I think the caller of the
CFJs was trying to ask. The whole sentence "I CFJ on this statement."
was obviously the CFJ statement in question, in both cases, because no
shorter substring of that text is a sentence (except "I CFJ on this"
which does not fit the way the text parses, and "I CFJ" for which there
seems to be no reasonable argument for claiming was the CFJ statement);
and in my understanding of the meaning of the word "statement", it
normally refers to a complete sentence. (Although things which are not
technically statements have been accepted as CFJ statements before,
there is no ambiguity here because the only reading which fits the
apparent spirit of what was said - that the entire statement which
called the CFJ was CFJd on - is also the only reading which fits the
literal meaning of the rules. I don't think there can be ambiguity where
one possibility fits the apparent intention of the caller of the CFJ and
also the letter of the rules, whereas the other possibility fits

In my judgement of CFJ 2094, I also find that objecting to a dependent
action whilst not being commonly known by the name ais523 is a regulated
action. (This is completely irrelevant to the judgement; however, it
should be enough to trigger rule 2125(f).)