|Greg Ritter on 11 Jan 2002 11:07:41 -0000|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Revision of 236|
At 08:17 AM 1/10/2002 -0800, you wrote:
--- Greg Ritter <gritter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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). > > --gritter > You seem to confuse game state (well defined properties such as scores, rules, players and such) and game custom (vague metagame interpretation of the rules). The status quo persists regardless of wether a refused/undecided CFJ modifies game custom or not. Of course this is just my own very personal interpretation of "game custom".
Repeated: Huh?I'm not talking about game state (which is a clear, quantifiable concept in comparison to "game custom" or "force of law," as evidenced by this thread).
If the game custom has been modified, then by definition, the status quo has not persisted.
"Change" is mutually exclusive with "the status quo persists." --gritter