====================================================================== CFJ 902 "Proposal 2818 caused the adoption of a VOC on a report wherein Proposal 2662 was reported to fail." ====================================================================== Judge: Harlequin Judgement: FALSE Eligible: Antimatter, Blob, Chuck, Crito, elJefe, favor, General Chaos, Harlequin, KoJen, Macross, Michael, Morendil, Murphy, Steve, Swann, Vanyel, Zefram Not eligible: Caller: Oerjan Barred: - On hold: Andre ====================================================================== History: Called by Oerjan, Sun, 23 Feb 1997 16:50:22 +0100 (MET) Assigned to Harlequin, Tue, 25 Feb 1997 10:33:04 +0000 Judged FALSE, Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:02:54 -0500 (EST) Published, Sat, 1 Mar 1997 17:23:19 +0000 ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Reasons and arguments: Steve provides a line of reasoning regarding the best interests of the game for this CFJ to be judged FALSE. I do believe that it is in the best interests of the game for Proposal 2818 to correctly VOC the second Assessor's report which claimed to report the results of P2662. I do not think this is a sufficient reason to judge this CFJ FALSE in and of itself. However, this will not be neccesary. Oerjan's argument is based on the fact that "the results" is specific and, therefore, must refer to a *specific set* of results. Since there is no other default, he claims, it must refer to the *correct* results, those being the ones in the first Assessor's report which claimed to contain P2662's results. I will agree that, when alone (i.e. "What were the results?") the phrase "the results" implies that one was referring to the correct results. However, this is just an implication, not a neccesity of the the wording. The natural parsing of P2818 is, I feel, the one Swann intended. Even if the word "the" technically means what Oerjan claims (and I do not neccesarily agree that it does), its usage is such that it does not imply anything here. An attempt to read this sentence in the way Oerjan suggests may work, but it is counterintuitive and seems to be trying to use the technical definition of a single word without taking into account usage and the sentence as a whole. ====================================================================== Evidence: Proposal 2818 by Swann (AI=1) VOC to affirm the passage of 2662 The following Directive is hereby adopted: A VOC is adopted on the last Assessor's report that contained the results of Proposal 2662. ====================================================================== (Caller's) Arguments: My argument, as before, is that the phrase "the results" in the absence of modifiers such as "incorrect" or "alleged" must refer to a specific set of results, namely the correct ones. ======================================================================