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

[Greg Ritter <gritter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.


--gritter