|Greg Ritter on 10 Jan 2002 05:20:35 -0000|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The most-revised proposal ever: 236 again|
At 02:31 PM 1/9/2002 -0600, you 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 the time of the ruling. 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 a potential statement of game custom.
I don't think this statement solves anything. You've taken one undefined phrase ("force of law") and replaced it with another undefined phrase "statement of game custom"). "Force of law" isn't even mentioned anywhere in the ruleset other than in Rule 128.
The problem with "force of law" is NOT that it's too forceful or limiting, but that because it is undefined it can be *interpreted* as too forceful or limiting. It seems to me that "game custom" is an equally vague and shady term.
What makes "game custom" better than "force of law"? --gritter