Re: [s-b] $wgLogo

[Jonathan David Amery <jdamery@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > I'd like to raise my own request for judgement to get this sorted:
> > {{Statement: Should a player be called upon to judge an RFJ that is
> > not valid according to the rules, then e may declare it invalid.  E
> > does not need to render judgement, since it is not an RFJ as defined
> > in the rules.}}
> 
> I don't quite understand what this RFJ is supposed to tell us, but
> it's RFJ 7, assigned to Wild Card.
> 
 This RFJ consists of three Statements:

 1) Should a player be called upon to judge an RFJ that is not valid
    according to the rules, then e may declare it invalid.

 2) E does not need to render judgement.

 3) The reason for (2) is that it is not an RFJ as defined in the rules.

 This RFJ is therefore not conformant to rule 2-5: 

 "RFJs are Game Documents that contain exactly one Statement, optionally
some supporting Reasoning and optionally name a Player as Defendant for
that RFJ".

 I may change the state of this RFJ to Invalid, if I consider that the
contained Statement is unclear, ambiguous, or irrelevant.  However this
RFJ is none of the above, it merely isn't conformant therefore I am
required by the rules to accept it.

 I perform the Game Action of changing the state of this RFJ to
Accepted.

 I am now called to render Judgement on it to the best of my knowledge
of the Rules.  Unfortunately I only have a choice of "TRUE" or "FALSE".
Let's look at the first Statement.  The first statement is clearly
untrue in at least some cases, as demonstrated by this RFJ.

 Hence at least one Statement in this RFJ is false.

 Therefore I find it reasonable to render Judgement with a FALSE
verdict.

 WC.
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business