Greg Ritter on 11 Jan 2002 11:07:50 -0000

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

Re: spoon-discuss: For discussion, before I make it an official revision

At 05:08 PM 1/10/2002 -0600, you wrote:

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 Judgement summarily changed to "Refused" by the creation of a
new revision of the CFJ with the "Refused" Judgement.  All effects of
the prior Judgement on the CFJ will be retracted by the Administrator.
This paragraph will then delete itself from this rule.

Still in violation of 204 because a Judgment is not a revisable object.

The Judgment is given the same serial number as the CFJ (Rule 128/2). CFJs are assigned serial numbers "AS IF they were revisable objects." [emphasis added] (Rule 126/1).

The "as if" means that a CFJ is not a revisable objects, but is assigned a serial number by the same process one would assign serial numbers to revisable objects. This is supported by the next sentence of Rule 126/1 which states "A CFJ cannot be modified once submitted," pretty much making it clear that it's not revisable.

You edit out the unrevisability of the CFJ later in the proposal, but the CFJ isn't the Judgment, so the revisability of the CFJ doesn't have anything to do with the dictate in the above quoted paragraph that it "shall have its Judgment summarily changed." The paragraph revises the Judgment, not the CFJ.

Since the rules don't say Judgments are not revisable, you might attempt slide it in under 18/1, but then Rule 204kicks in. Making changes to the past -- which includes Judgments -- *is* regulated.

And even if you can somehow slip the revisability of Judgments through the Radar, you're still in violation of 204 with the sentence "All effects of the prior Judgment on the CFJ will be retracted" because now you're talking about retracting *effects*, not just the text of the judgment itself, which is a change to the past game state. So if a judgment gave someone points, this would make the game state as if those points had never been awarded -- a 204 violation.

In fact, 204 may make any judicial appeal process problematic....

Too many questions, too many potential loopholes, too much at one time. This proposal is out of hand. I think you have bitten off more than you can chew. Noble, but ultimately tragic, Ulysses.