spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Revision of 236

[Jörg Rathlev <joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> No Call For Judgement may include a statement which refers
> specifically to the judge assigned to judge that CFJ, or the judge
> specifically assigned to judge any other specific CFJ

Wouldn't this sentence alone be sufficient?

I have to agree with uin in that as long as we keep the rules
modifyable, there'll always be a way to circumvent this stuff, so I'm
opposed to applying an overly complex solution that doesn't even work
to a minor problem. But the above sentence would make clear that it's
against game custom, so having a simple provision like that is a good
thing (IMHO).

As for replacing the force-of-law thing, I'd also prefer to replace
that with something simple. Like "A Judge's decision shall be in
accordance with and guide further interpretation of the rules."

> 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

I don't think judges should be able to revise their decisions. What
happens for example if a judge decides "false" first, players act
accordingly, then, one day later, the judge changes eir mind and
judges "true"? Saying the rulings aren't final before one day has
passed won't help because, before the judgement was made, the rules
were probably unclear. Should players continue to consider them
unclear even though a judgement was published already?


> In any event of conflict between the rules and a CFJ statement, the
> rules shall in all circumstances supersede a CFJ statement,
> including CFJ statements which directly claim to supersede this or
> any other rule.

But wouldn't the conflict itself be something that is unclear and
therefore subject to a CFJ? But how can a CFJ ever resolve such
conflicts if the conflict takes precedence over its resolution?


> If at any time a player believes that changes to the rules have
> invalidated the prior ruling on a Call For Judgement (hereafter CFJ)
> statement

What if the rules are changed *because of* a judge decision (e.g.  a
statement that most players want to be true was judged false, and now
the rules have been changed to make it true), but no player ever
submits a CFJR? Does the original CFJ still guide interpretation of
the rules, creating a contradiction?


Joerg