==============================  CFJ 2183  ==============================

    It is impossible to assign a judge to the CFJ allegedly initiated in
    the message sent by "agoran@live.com" on "Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:16:23
    +0000" (see evidence 1) without revealing some information regarding
    who did or did not send the message.

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

Caller:                                 Sir Toby

Judge:                                  root
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by Sir Toby:                     24 Sep 2008 05:24:15 GMT
Assigned to root:                       28 Sep 2008 22:04:53 GMT
Judged TRUE by root:                    07 Oct 2008 21:29:15 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

I argue for a TRUE judgement in this case. The statement in the message
is clearly an inquiry case. Rule 591 (see evidence 2) governs inquiry
cases. In Rule 591, we see that, "the initiator is unqualified to be
assigned as judge of the case."

The message in question clearly does not indicate who sent the message.
Without knowing who sent the message, there is no way to ensure that the
initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. While it
is possible for the CotC to assign emself to be the judge, if they
indeed did not send the message, this would reveal some information
about who did or did not send the message.

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

Caller's Evidence:

<evidence id="1">
From: invalid invalid <agoran@live.com>
To: <agora-business@agoranomic.org>
Subject: BUS: A CFJ
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:16:23 +0000

I call for judgement on the following issue:
{
I submitted a proposal in my recent post
}

-- Anonymous
</evidence>



<evidence id="2">
Retrieved from:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2008-Septembe
r/004972.html

Rule 591/26 (Power=1.7)
Inquiry Cases

      There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.
      An inquiry case's purpose is to determine the veracity of a
      particular statement.  An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any
      first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement
      to be inquired into.  (Including a yes/no question is equivalent
      to including a statement that the answer to that question is
      yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the
      judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.)

      The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the
      case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one
      person from assignment as judge of the case.

      An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is
      always applicable.  The valid judgements for this question are:

      * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and
        logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated

      * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically
        true at the time the inquiry case was initiated

      * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically
        undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately
        described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry
        case was initiated

      * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at
        the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the
        game

      * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or
        too vague, or if the information available to the judge is
        insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and
        UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as
        to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute
        insufficiency of information for this purpose

      The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the
      reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play
      (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the
      veracity of the statement.  The Rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to
      annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case
      judgements.
</evidence>

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

Judge root's Arguments:

The caller's argument appears sound to me.  TRUE.

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