spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ -- Okay, but...

[Greg Ritter <gritter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 10:25 PM 1/26/2002 -0500, you wrote:


> These two judgments are contradictory; therefore one of them must be
> invalid.

There's nothing in the rules that requires Judgments be consistent with 
each other. Given that each judgment is (potentially) the interpretation of 
a separate player, one would expect there to be inconsistencies. I'm 
certain that Uncle Psycho and I would frequently come up with differing 
interpretations given the fundamental differences in how we view the game 
and game-state.

> [[ I am still trying to determine the de facto policy for the 
> game.  People talk about things that are legal because the rules don't 
> forbid them, yet so many CFJs restrict action because there are rules that 
> talk about things done in a particular way.]]

All of which is really moot. Judgments are intepretations of the rules. In 
the case of the imaginary players, any reasonable judge is going to 
generate the necessary interpretation to strike down the use of imaginary 
players because it would totally unbalance the game.

You're assuming that the sole intent of a Judge is to accurately reflect 
the meaning of the rules. I would imagine that frequently -- especially in 
the cases of CFJs that would throw the game into chaos -- the Judge 
actually looks to a "higher authority" (Reason? Game Custom?) to make their 
Judgment and then bends their interpretation to that Judgment as necessary 
to display some form of consistency.

Welcome to the world of interpretation. :-)

--gritter