|Jonathan Van Matre on 9 Jan 2002 20:04:55 -0000|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Revision of 236|
> 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). Modifying rules would require a majority vote, though. As uin has already demonstrated, packing a kickback into a CFJ is quite easy to do, and requires no such majority vote. I think some level of protection against (or at least proscription against) graft in CFJs makes sense. I'm about to post yet another revision that will hopefully tidy that up in a more satisfactory, less complex manner. > 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? Stricken in the upcoming revision. I originally put that in to allow for the "oh s#!t" factor just after e-mailing a CFJ and realizing you want to change your mind. Or accidentally typed the wrong word for your ruling, while providing analysis supporting the ruling you intended. But your point about the effect of implementing the CFJ and then changing the ruling makes a world of sense. > > 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? Since CFJs are game custom now, and rules are what they are, I suppose that makes this bit about superseding redundant. It's out. > > 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? Per uin's input, the proposal now clearly states that CFJs guide interpretation of the rules as they existed at the time of judgement. They have no enduring force other than as a reference to conditions at that point in time. --Scoff!