|Greg Ritter on 10 Jan 2002 12:12:02 -0000|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Revision of 236|
At 10:25 AM 1/10/2002 +0000, you wrote:
> This is incorrect. If a judge (in a real live court, I mean) refuses to> hear a case then by definition that refusal means the status quo is maintained.> > Likewise, if a court does not come to a decision -- e.g. a hung jury -- > again, the status quo is maintained.This isn't real life, it's nomic. Establishing a precedent that we can't decide certain things would be useful.uin.
Huh? How does the second sentence follow from the first sentence?I agree that deciding we can't decide certain things would be useful. No argument there.
I was responding to Antonio's objection to Prop 236; under that proposal, only True or False judgments can change game custom. He objects that a Refused or Undecided judgment would *not change* the game custom.
My take on it is that the *usefulness* of a Refused or Undecided judgment is that the status quo persists (as in a hung jury or refused case in real courts).