Antonio on 9 Jan 2002 18:23:47 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

spoon-discuss: Re: Revision of 236

On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 11:49:29 -0600, "Jonathan Van Matre"
<JVanMatre@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

>CFJ Statements do not have the force of law.  CFJ Statements whose most
>recent revisions are ruled "True" or "False" are regarded, with their
>associated rulings, as explicit statements of current game custom.  At
>no time does a CFJ Statement, even when ruled "True", become or create a
>rule.  Rulings of "Undecided" or "Refused" and their associated
>statements have no force of law or custom.  Only the most recent
>revision number of a CFJ statement is ever regarded as a statement of
>game custom. 

This part is strange, what you are proposing is basically:

-if the ruling is TRUE or FALSE then the *statement and the ruling* are
part of game custom
-if the ruling is UNDECIDED or REFUSED then the *statement and the ruling*
are NOT part of game custom

I think the second part is unnecessary, and actually it would be better if
Undecided and Refused rulings were part of game custom too.

heck, why not? Is ther a loophole I don't see?

Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free address at