Re: [s-b] [s-d] 113.3 Administrator's Update

["Jake Eakle" <jseakle@xxxxxxxxx>]

[[Alright, then.]]

 I change the state of RFJ 1 to Invalid.

[[I do this because it in no way could be used to guide interpretation of
the rules, being instead a spurious claim about the gamestate.]]

-Personman

On 12/4/06, Peter Cooper Jr. <pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> "Jake Eakle" <jseakle@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > I appear to have something of a dilemma. Section four of Rule 2-5,
> > "Accepting RFJs", says
> >
> > "The selected Judge shall as a Game Action accept eir assigned RFJ by
> > changing it's state to Accepted."
> >
> > This appears to me to mean that I *must* accept my assigned RFJ, but
> that I
> > must do this by changing its state to Accepted. However, there appears
> to be
> > no way for me to so change its state. Also, under the current definition
> of
> > Game Action, it doesn't really make sense for me to perform one "by"
> doing
> > something other than posting to a public forum stating that I do. So
> even if
> > there was a way for me to change its state to Accepted, I don't think
> that
> > would be a valid way to perform a Game Action.
>
> You raise an interesting point. However, since the rule on Game
> Actions (r1-10) states that "The Rules also have the power to cause an
> Outsider to take Game Actions whether e posts or not.", it seems that
> maybe r2-5 empowers the selected judge to change the state to
> Accepted, and perhaps the player does it whether they post or not. (I
> think someone else mentioned that this was the case.)
>
> > Also, once the above is somehow resolved and I have successfully
> accepted my
> > RFJ, I appear to have another dilemma. First, the same section goes on
> to
> > say
> >
> > "The selected Judge may also change the RFJ's state to Invalid, if e
> > considers the contained Statement to be unclear, ambiguous, or
> irrelevant."
> >
> > but right below that, in the next section, it says
> >
> > "Once an RFJ is Accepted, the selected Judge shall as a Game Action
> render
> > Judgment on it to the best of eir knowledge of the Rules. "
> >
> > and
> >
> > "Once Judgment is rendered, the state of the RFJ becomes Resolved"
> >
> > This seems to imply that as soon as it's accepted, ie, before I get a
> chance
> > to change it to Invalid, I have to render judgment on it, and that once
> I
> > do, it becomes resolved. However, it doesn't say I'm no longer the
> selected
> > judge, after that, so I guess I can still change its state to Invalid
> > *after* I've rendered judgment on it, causing it to only guide further
> > interpretation of the rules for a very short time.
> >
> > I don't really think this is what was intended though.
>
> Well, I think that while it's accepted, and before you render a
> ruling, you can change it to Invalid. The Rules can't really force you
> to rule TRUE or FALSE on it immediately without your posting to a
> forum, since how could it know what your decision was?
>
> But I do think that you can change it to Invalid after rendering a
> judgment, in any case.
>
> I'd welcome a rules change or RFJ clarifying all this, although we may
> end up in an interesting situation where a ruling on a RFJ says that
> that own ruling was invalid. That sounds like a pretty classic paradox
> to me. Should be fun. :)
>
> In the meantime, I'm going to allow players to render rulings and
> change RFJs assigned to them to Invalid, at least until someone
> determines that them doing so isn't legal.
>
> --
> Peter C.
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business