|Eric Gerlach on 9 Jan 2002 04:37:29 -0000|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Revision of 236/1 _My Gavel Up Your Ass_|
At 12:22 PM 2002-01-08 -0600, you wrote:
<snip> As for an appeal process, one could use the CFJR that way, with the understanding that you'd probably be getting the same judge. Beyond that, since rules supersede CFJs under the system I've proposed, what I envisioned as the next step for appeal is to create a proposal that implements the decision you wanted as a rule, and convince a majority of your peers to agree. I think that's probably sufficient, but if someone wants to suggest another method of handling appeals, feel free.
Well.... the thing with CFJs is AFAIK they're supposed to be clarifications (of rules or otherwise). So if there was a confusion about rules or game state (such as what happened with scores a while ago - looking at the first few CFJs) then a CFJ would clarify that. OTOH, judgements on things that are obviously not vague, undefined or ambiguous should not be made in the first place.
So I agree that judges should not be able to have the "force of law" in such a way that essentially makes new rules, on the other hand, the clarifications that they make should stand as law. Allow me to address this in a proosal (so I like the word, sue me), which I will post tomorrow or so on the business list.
Okay. Now I'm done being serious. Time for some sl.... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Cheers, Bean