Jonathan Van Matre on 10 Jan 2002 14:40:55 -0000

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

RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Revision of 236

Doesn't this go against your previous argument that CFJ rulings should
be a statement of game custom *at a point in time* and not applicable in
perpetuity thereafter?  A Refused or Undecided CFJ becomes judicial
precedent anyway, by being archived regardless of the decision.  But
only a True or False ruling represents a clear decision by the judge on
how the rules are guiding game custom at a point in time.  

Just because something can't be decided now doesn't mean the rules won't
make it possible to decide later.


-----Original Message-----
From: Doig, Gavin [mailto:GDoig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 4:26 AM
To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Revision of 236

> This is incorrect. If a judge (in a real live court, I mean) refuses
> hear a case then by definition that refusal means the status quo is
> 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. 

This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the
intended recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain
information which is  privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within
the meaning of applicable  law. If you are not the intended recipient,
be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use,
dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this message
(including any attachments) is strictly prohibited.  If you have
received this message in error, please contact the sender of this
message as soon as possible. 
The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author
and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited