Donald Whytock on 28 Jan 2002 05:16:59 -0000

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

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

On 1/27/02 at 5:33 PM Greg Ritter wrote:

>At 10:25 PM 1/26/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>>These two judgments are contradictory; therefore one of them must be
>There's nothing in the rules that requires Judgments be consistent with
>each other. Given that each judgment is (potentially) the interpretation
>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
>>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
>Judgment and then bends their interpretation to that Judgment as necessary
>to display some form of consistency.
>Welcome to the world of interpretation. :-)

So it is your opinion that the underlying logic of the nomiverse that allows two otherwise contradictory rulings to exist is that nowhere does it say that judgments have to agree, or have anything to do with one another?  Even though they both carry the Force of Law?