spoon-discuss: Ongoing discussions with the sushi

["Jonathan Van Matre" <JVanMatre@xxxxxxxx>]

Miraculously, I think I spy what you're getting at.

The biggest problem is this part, yes? -- 

> No ruling on a CFJ may be changed except by the judge 
> assigned to rule on that CFJ, or by a Call For Judicial Review.  No
rule may directly
> alter or revise the ruling on a CFJ or specific class of CFJs.

In other words, while my intent is for rules to be able to overturn CFJs
by superseding them, this seems to say that they can't, that only a
judge can alter the effect of a CFJ.

The idea I was having here was that a rule can't just say "The ruling on
CFJ 377 is now TRUE" or "All new CFJs by Glotmorf are to be summarily
ruled FALSE", but it should still be able to override a CFJ by just
enacting as a rule whatever *effect* the author wants to see, without
changing the ruling.

In retrospect, that restriction is probably unnecessary anyway, and
there are certainly ways in which allowing rules to modify CFJ rulings
would be valuable.  It's also in the spirit of the game -- since rules
can modify other rules, they should be able to modify anything that
falls under the banner of "the letter of the law".  And, as Mike Judge
(formerly uin) has pointed out, if people don't like such proposals,
they can vote them down.

I'll submit a revision to fix that.  Thanks, and let me know if you have
any other good suggestions.

--Scoff!

 
> Think:
> 
> -Proposal _My Gavel Up Your Ass_
> -
> -Create a rule as follows:
> -
> -{{
> -_No Judicial Kickbacks_
> -...
> -...
> -...
  Judges
> -may revise their ruling within one nday of the first posting of that
> -ruling in a public forum, after which time all rulings are 
> final (except
> -in the case of a Call For Judicial Review).
> -}}
> 
> When we will be able to change, overturn possibility there 
> are not that time we. 
> 
> Your translation was good one.  
> 
> 						Glotmorf