Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: Judgement/Proposal overhaul

[Dan <wald7330@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Gavin Doig wrote:

> > When a judgement on a CFJ is approved the Plaintiff and the Judge
> each > recieve 10 points.  When a judgement is declined the Plaintiff
> and the > Judge each lose 5 points. > I don't like this whole idea,
> but this bit is just silly. We'll get: people voting against CFJs just
> to prevent others from getting points; people submitting trivial CFJs
> just for the points; people reluctant to CFJ things, in case they lose
> points.
> 
> And you still have the "force of law" nonsense in there. That's bad
> because it doesn't really mean anything, and it's bad because CFJs
> should be about determining which interpretation of the rules is
> right, not about arbitrarily changing the gamestate. Admittedly,
> that's less of a problem if we're voting on CFJs (because we won't be
> letting 2 players change the gamestate), but it's still not good.
> You're effectively making CFJs into watered-down, over-complex
> proosals, when they should be there just for clarification when we
> can't decide what the rules are saying.

I disagree.  The original Nomic ruleset by Peter Suber, upon which our
Berserker-derived ruleset was based, was heavily influenced by the US
constitution.  I believe it is one feature of the US constitution that at
the highest level, courts have the power to strike down or change laws.
Our CFJ system can be considered an analog to the court system, and should
have the power to update the rules, the interpretation of rules, or
arbitrarily change the game state to a state from which play can continue.

Dan