RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The most-revised proposal ever: 236 again

["Jonathan Van Matre" <JVanMatre@xxxxxxxx>]

Suber's initial ruleset doesn't define "game custom", despite using the
term.  I haven't turned up *any* Nomics that do, actually, and a great
many of them do refer to game custom in their rulesets.

If anyone wants to propose a rule that clearly defines "game custom" and
"force of law", go for it.  I'll add it to the judicial reform prop, or
you can float it on your own.  But my gut feeling is that there's a
certain amount of uncertainty principle behind these concepts, and
attempts to pin them down (beyond what common sense and standard English
usage tell us) will just make them that much more difficult to
interpret.

Personally, I wouldn't know where to begin.  I think the prop as it is,
though, does at least establish a hint of what game custom is by stating
that CFJ True & False rulings become explicit statements of game custom.
It sort of traces round the concept without filling it in.

--Scoff!


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Ritter [mailto:gritter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 11:20 PM
> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The most-revised proposal
> ever: 236 again
> 
> 
> At 02:31 PM 1/9/2002 -0600, you wrote:
> 
> >CFJ Statements do not have the force of law.  CFJ Statements 
> whose most
> >recent revisions are ruled "True" or "False" are regarded, with their
> >associated rulings, as explicit statements of current game 
> custom at the
> >time of the ruling.  At no time does a CFJ Statement, even when ruled
> >"True", become or create a rule.  Rulings of "Undecided" or "Refused"
> >and their associated statements have no force of law or custom.  Only
> >the most recent revision number of a CFJ statement is a potential
> >statement of game custom.
> 
> I don't think this statement solves anything. You've taken 
> one undefined 
> phrase ("force of law") and replaced it with another undefined phrase 
> "statement of game custom"). "Force of law" isn't even 
> mentioned anywhere 
> in the ruleset other than in Rule 128.
> 
> The problem with "force of law" is NOT that it's too forceful 
> or limiting, 
> but that because it is undefined it can be *interpreted* as 
> too forceful or 
> limiting. It seems to me that "game custom" is an equally 
> vague and shady 
> term.
> 
> What makes "game custom" better than "force of law"?
> 
> --gritter