RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Revision of 236

[Greg Ritter <gritter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 10:25 AM 1/10/2002 +0000, you wrote:

> > This is incorrect. If a judge (in a real live court, I mean) refuses to
> > hear a case then by definition that refusal means the status quo is 
> maintained.
> >
> > Likewise, if a court does not come to a decision -- e.g. a hung jury --
> > again, the status quo is maintained.
>
> This isn't real life, it's nomic. Establishing a precedent that we can't 
> decide certain things would be useful.

Huh? How does the second sentence follow from the first sentence?

I agree that deciding we can't decide certain things would be useful.

I was responding to Antonio's objection to Prop 236; under that proposal, 
he objects that a Refused or Undecided judgment would not *change* the game 
custom in the same fashion that a True or False judgment would.

My take on it is that the *usefulness* of a Refused or Undecided judgment 
is that it doesn't change the status quo.

--gritter