Re: spoon-business: JUDGEMENT CFJ -- invalid proposals

["Donald Whytock" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hm.  Fair enough.  I'll therefore submit a more qualified CFJ (a different one, of course, since a CFJ can't be modified):

Statement: Proposals 229, 230, 231 and 240 are not valid proposals because they do not use the Standard Delimiters listed in rule 217.  As evidence of this statement, I cite the analysis for CFJ 248.

						Glotmorf

On 1/13/02 at 11:32 AM Link5050@xxxxxxx wrote:

>In the case of CFJ 248:
>
>Statement (Glotmorf): Proposals 229, 230, 231, 240, 241, and 242 are not
>valid proposals because they do not use the Standard Delimiters listed in
>Rule 217.
>
>Judgement: I judge this statement to be False.
>
>Analysis:  The only reason this statement is false is that I believe that
>in rule 217, it is implicit that if the standard delimiters '{{' and '}}'
>are not present, then everything in the message is considered to be the
>proposal.  The standard delimiters serve to allow players to write things
>in their messages besides proposals if they have no comments to make.
>Specifically, with proposals 241 and 242, if the starting and ending
>delimiters are, as I see them, understood [[since there is nothing in the
>proposals besides "If the LOGAS exists..."]], and they are not proposing a
>rule, so they do not require the title delimiter '__'.  Since these two
>proposals are not, then, invalid, the entire statement must then be false.
> As the statement is worded such that all the proposals are grouped
>together and THEN accused of being invalid, the two proposals being valid
>falsify the entire statement.
>
>-0- Thus Spake THE VOICE From On High -0-