spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ruling - 462

["Gavin Doig" <gmd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Seems to me that any answer but FALSE would be a contradiction...
>
I don't think so. It's only a contradiction if the statement is FALSE. If the statement is TRUE, then any judgment but TRUE would be a contradiction of the *statement*, although the actual CFJ would never have existed, so with respect to the rules you could judge it POTATOE, if you wanted. 

> Also seems
> to me that this CFJ is completely useless, and that it would be nice if
> people could find ways to point out holes without filling the CFJ page with
> meaningless CFJs.
>
But it's not useless. A verdict of TRUE, with analysis to the effect that the Admin needs to go back and fix his recognitions before the CFJ can exist, would confirm the existence of the problem. That's important, because if you don't beat people about the heads with such things, they tend to ignore them. ;-)

Admittedly, it would be a little strange after he rerecognised, because the verdict then *would* be a contradiction, but... well, it doesn't actually matter, because CFJs don't actually do anything. I could have worded the CFJ differently, but it still wouldn't exist until the admin fixed his recognitions, so I didn't see that it would have helped much.

I'm giving serious consideration to appealing this too, on the grounds that the reasoning didn't even try to address the actual issue. A verdict of FALSE is fine, but only if supported by reasoning that says that the admin has fixed his recognitions (or even reasoning that explains why he doesn't have too, if there's a valid explanation to that effect).

uin.
-- 

_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Win the Ultimate Hawaiian Experience from Travelocity.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4018363;6991039;n?http://svc.travelocity.com/promos/winhawaii/