RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Revision of 236/1 _My Gavel Up Your Ass_

[Eric Gerlach <egerlach@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 12:22 PM 2002-01-08 -0600, you wrote:
> <snip>
>
> As for an appeal process, one could use the CFJR that way, with the
> understanding that you'd probably be getting the same judge.  Beyond
> that, since rules supersede CFJs under the system I've proposed, what I
> envisioned as the next step for appeal is to create a proposal that
> implements the decision you wanted as a rule, and convince a majority of
> your peers to agree.  I think that's probably sufficient, but if someone
> wants to suggest another method of handling appeals, feel free.

Well.... the thing with CFJs is AFAIK they're supposed to be clarifications 
(of rules or otherwise).  So if there was a confusion about rules or game 
state (such as what happened with scores a while ago - looking at the first 
few CFJs) then a CFJ would clarify that.  OTOH, judgements on things that 
are obviously not vague, undefined or ambiguous should not be made in the 
first place.

So I agree that judges should not be able to have the "force of law" in 
such a way that essentially makes new rules, on the other hand, the 
clarifications that they make should stand as law.  Allow me to address 
this in a proosal (so I like the word, sue me), which I will post tomorrow 
or so on the business list.

Okay.  Now I'm done being serious.  Time for some sl.... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Cheers,

Bean