Doig, Gavin on 10 Jan 2002 16:22:52 -0000

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

RE: spoon-discuss: Undecided and Refused rulings...

Title: RE: spoon-discuss: Undecided and Refused rulings...

> > No, that's not what I mean at all. What I mean is that if the
> > rules say "A is a thingy", and we rule that that means the
> > statement "A is > 3" is undecided, then at a later time if
> > the rules say "A is 2. B is a thingy." the precedent would
> > apply to "B is > 3" being undecided, even though "A is > 3"
> > would no longer be undecided at that later point in time.
> Yes, but what if meanwhile, after the A CFJ and before the B CFJ,
> someone has introduced a rule that says "All thingys are < 3"?  Then,
> the conditions that made the A CFJ undecidable have been remedied, and
> the B CFJ can be decided.
The (new) rules would override the (old) game custom, and the judge would (or should, at least) rule false. The game custom would not be that thingys being > 3 is undecidable, it would be that stuff which isn't defined as a number being > 3 is undecidable. It's exactly the same situation as the rules saying "thingys are < 3" and then being changed to say "thingys are > 3" (yes, that's a trivial example that would never be CFJed, but you get the point).

> My vision is that the Undecided ruling *is* a part of judicial
> precedent, and *can* be consulted by a judge when making a ruling on a
> similar or related CFJ.
If it were part of game custom that thingys were undefined, then it would remove the need for CFJing each instance of a thingy, rather than merely guide the judges of the CFJs.

> But it shouldn't be game custom to refuse all
> CFJs of a certain type just because a CFJ of that type was refused
> before.
Yes, it should - unless something has changed in the meantime. Just as it should be game custom to judge all CFJs whose statements depend on the same issue true, if one was judged true before (again, until something changes).

> > Just so. But the circumstances that made it undecidable might
> > apply to something else.

> And they might have been remedied, or altered.
In which case the circumstances wouldn't be relevant to that situation. Just as, if something changes, a CFJ which was judged true at the time might now be false.


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