RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The most-revised proposal ever: 236 again

["Jonathan Van Matre" <JVanMatre@xxxxxxxx>]

> >At the time of the passage of this proposal, any CFJ judged 
> in the past
> >10 ndays that called for one or more effects that discriminate in any
> >way between players based on their judgement or non-judgement of that
> >CFJ, or any other specific CFJ or proposal identified in the 
> CFJ, shall
> >have its ruling summarily changed to "Refused".  This paragraph will
> >then delete itself from this rule.
> 
> Hate to point this out... but I think this paragraph violates 
> rule 204/0...

The intent was that a new revision gets created, changing the ruling in
the here and now, without altering the past ruling.  Clarified in the
next (and I hope final) revision.

> Hmmm.... what happens to "Undecided" rulings?  I guess you could just 
> resubmit the CFJ if you wanted a new ruling that badly.  You should 
> probably add a statement to the effect of overturning any "indirect 
> effect[s] of the ruling on a CFJ [which required] alterations 
> to the rule 
> set or game state, to bring them in accordance with the 
> judgement".  Otherwise, if there were any auxilliary effects, they're 
> stuck!  And an nweek might pass in the appeal time, making 
> another CFJ 
> impossible.

Good point.  I'm adding explicit provisions for implementation of
rulings, suspension of their effects during appeal, and reversal of
their effects in the event of an overturn.

Thanks!

--Scoff!