Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Ruling

[Iain.Scott.01@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Ruling: FALSE

Analysis: r129/2 does not say that ?the game state is altered to a 
state that doesn't include that statement? if it is objected to, it 
says ?the usual methods for determining the current rules and game 
state shall apply? if a statement is objected to.  I disagree with 
Glortmorf?s later argument that r129/2 implies that an ?objected to? 
and incorrect statement is removed from the game state.
Hence the game state is _not_ altered per r129/2, and this CFJ is FALSE.

[[If it worked at all, I consider r129/2 to have said that, for a given 
statement, S, by the administrator:
If S was correct, and no one objected to it, we continue play.
If S was incorrect, but unnoticed within 20 days, we just continued 
playing (even if we later noticed after 20 days).
If S was incorrect, but noticed within 20 days, we would have to go 
back and rectify our knowledge of the game state, effectivly beginning 
again from just before the statement.
But if S is correct, and someone objects (as in this case, the rules 
are clear on the subject of what goes on the ballot), the objection 
really has no effect on the game state at all.]]


cheers,
Iain


Quoting Donald Whytock <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> On 2/14/2002 I objected to the Administrator's earlier statement that
> proposal 377 was on a ballot.  I contend that now, as per r129, the
> game state is altered to a state that doesn't include that statement,
> since it was objected to.
>
> 						Glotmorf
>
>
> 



is9219@xxxxxxxxxx


-----------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through SilkyMail v1.1.2