spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ

[Eric Gerlach <egerlach@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 12:55 AM 2002-03-04 +0000, you wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:
>
> > On 2/14/2002 I objected to the Administrator's earlier statement that
> > proposal 377 was on a ballot.  I contend that now, as per r129, the
> > game state is altered to a state that doesn't include that statement,
> > since it was objected to.
>
> Since r129 didn't exist in the current form at that time, I could
> counter-contend that your statement cannot have an effect (since it would
> be governed by the then-extant version of r129).
>
> Failing that, though, per the current version of r129, "the usual methods
> for determining the current rules and game state shall apply." And since
> your subject contains the phrase "CFJ" I choose to believe that you do in
> fact intend for your statement to be a CFJ.
>
> So... CFJ 430, assigned to Iain.

I'd like to provide my amicus brief to the court if I may....

Since Glotmorf objected to this statement, "the usual methods for 
determining the current rules and game state" must be used to figure out if 
indeed there was a proposal 377 on the ballot.  Therefore, consensus or a 
CFJ must be used to determine if there was a proposal 377.  Now, neither of 
those things has *explicitly* happened, however, there has been an implicit 
acceptance of proposal 377, and so his honour, Iain, should rule FALSE.

But I'm going to argue one step beyond that, and say that this CFJ should 
be judged FALSE for one more reason.  "I contend that now, as per r129, the 
game state is altered to a state that doesn't include that statement, since 
it was objected to."  This statement is false, even if there WASN'T a 
proposal 377.  Rule 129 does not alter anything if someone objects to a 
statement, it simply states that we must resort to other methods.  Rule 129 
only alters the gamestate on Administrator statements.  Since Glotmorf used 
rule 129 as a causal in his statement, and the causal is false, the entire 
statement must be false, and therefore the CFJ is FALSE.

I'd like to thank the court for allowing this brief.

Bean