Gavin Doig on 5 Feb 2002 16:56:00 -0000

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

RE: spoon-discuss: Rule 10 not repealed

> Actually, the actual rule set depends on him to
> update it, as it's not marked that it's dependent
> on anyone else to update it, and r25 says all
> game duties not assigned by the Rules to other
> players are his responsibility. 
That's not a "game duty". The game duty (if it even exists - the rules are unclear on this) is simply to update our version of the rules. The actual rules modify themselves.

> While it is not
> his responsibility to determine what the rules
> mean, or what they "say", he is responsible for
> determining what text the rule set is composed
> of.  In theory, he could ignore the changes the
> proposals make, and as long as he's not CFJ'd,
> the text of the rule set that exists as a result is
> in fact the legal rule set.
If he doesn't update the rules in accordance with proosals, it just means he hasn't updated his copy of the rules. He could refuse to *recognise* a proosal, and then it wouldn't happen, but that's because the rules say it only happens when he does it. Nowhere do the rules say that the records he keeps are the actual rules, and nowhere do they say that maintaining the rules is a game duty for anyone.

Regardless of which...

> You could, of course, CFJ the Administrator now,
> since, as you pointed out, there's no Statute of
> Limitations on Administrator actions. 

>Whereupon he'd probably argue that, even though
> your action then may be legal now, it wasn't legal
> then, and therefore he was taking the correct
> course of action by ignoring you. 
Well, yes. I'd agree with that. He *was* taking the correct action by ignoring me, when my action was illegal. My action is now legal, however, so he is no longer correct in doing so.

> And while it's possible that no one can CFJ you
> now for your action then, if the Judge rules that
> the Administrator was correct in ignoring you
> then, the rule set that resulted from the
> Administrator's action has the force of law now.
Well, any judge's verdict has the force of law (no matter how poor their reasoning. ;-)). But I don't think it makes any difference. If the CFJ said the admin was correct to ignore me at the time, then that's true, and was supported by the rules at the time regardless of whether it had the "force of law". If the CFJ says that the admin was correct in ignoring me *now*, though, then it would be false, as my action is legal (and even if the judge found it true, we know from a previous CFJ that "force of law" can't overrule the rules - thanks, Scoff! ;-)).

> I'd certainly be willing to rule that way...:)
No comment. ;-)


Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at

Win a ski trip!