Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ

["Donald Whytock" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/3/02 at 11:12 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:

>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

If I may...

On the contrary, the game state has in fact been altered since that time.  The Administrator made statements both before and after the one I objected to, and, since, as far as I know, those weren't objected to, they therefore, by the current version of r129, resulted in alteration of the game state to reflect those statements.

It is correct that no such alteration was performed in the instance of the statement that I objected to.  That, however, means that in the subsequent alteration, performed as per the following Administrator statement, the statement I objected to should not have been reflected.

The significance of the game state not including the statement I objected to is not as much whether or not p377 was placed on the ballot; the significance is that almost all players, including myself, voted by responding to the email that included that statement.  If, according to the game state, that statement was never made, then it couldn't possibly have appeared in the votes that were cast by responding to the ballot message which quoted it.  Therefore, there may exist the word Yes or No in a given player's ballot, but without the Administrator's statement of p377 being part of the ballot being next to it, the word doesn't correspond to anything.

Which meant that, except in those cases where a player specifically said, "I vote [Yes|No] for Proposal 377," p377 didn't receive any votes.

The votes therefore need recounting.

						Al Morf