|Jonathan Van Matre on 10 Jan 2002 15:49:07 -0000|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The most-revised proposal ever: 236 again|
Hypothetical situation: I submit four proposals. Someone forgets to count them. All four get adopted and enacted. Someone realizes what has happened and CFJs me for exceeding the bandwidth limit. CFJ: "Scoff! submitted one too many proposals." Ruling: True. Now what? We can change our *records* of the game state and rules, but if all that changes is the records, that means my 4th rule is in effect even if it's not on the record. I still have the points I received for that 4th proposal, even if they are not on the record. There has to be some kind of power somewhere for the game state to be changed when CFJs require it. One can always CFJ the actions taken as a result of a CFJ if necessary. --Scoff! -----Original Message----- From: Doig, Gavin [mailto:GDoig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 4:20 AM To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The most-revised proposal ever: 236 again > However, the indirect effect of the ruling on a CFJ may require > alterations to the rule set or game state, to bring them in accordance > with the judgement. > No! Kitty is a bad Kitty! By which I mean, the ruling should never change anything. It may require changes to *our records of things*, but that's not the same thing. Although the opposite viewpoint is probably defensible. uin.