RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RE: Proposal: _My Gavel Up Your Ass_ (aka No Judicial Kickbacks)

["Donald Whytock" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hm...you might want to reconsider that, then.  Otherwise, under the rules, I could submit a statement that says, for example:

"Rule 152 reads as follows: Changes to the state of the game may only be made via a Proposal or via an Action which is permitted by the Rules. "

...which would be judged true because, indeed, rule 152 currently reads that way.  At which point rule 152 becomes unrevisible because the judgment would have the force of law.  In this way I could engrave in stone any rule I wanted to by issuing a CFJ verifying its current wording.

						Glotmorf

On 1/7/02 at 1:14 PM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

>Under current law, it would appear you are correct.  Hence the final
>"sleeper" paragraph in my proposal.
>
>--Scoff!
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 1:07 PM
>> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RE: Proposal: _My Gavel Up
>> Your Ass_ (aka No Judicial Kickbacks)
>>
>>
>> On 1/7/02 at 1:01 PM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
>>
>> >> At the time of the passage of this proposal, any CFJ judged
>> >> in the past 10 ndays that referred specifically to the judge
>> >> assigned to judge that CFJ, or the judge specifically
>> >> assigned to judge any other specific CFJ, will have its
>> >> ruling summarily changed to REFUSED.  This paragraph will then
>> >> delete itself from this rule.  The following paragraph is
>> >> inactive until this paragraph is deleted.
>>
>> So...a judgment is a revisable object?  As in, players can
>> submit proposals to reverse judgments? :)
>>
>> 						Glotmorf
>>
>>
>>