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

["Donald Whytock" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/3/02 at 11:51 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:

>At 11:38 PM 2002-03-03 -0500, you wrote:
>>On 3/3/02 at 11:12 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:
>>
>>If I may...
>
>Of course.
>
>>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.
>
>You've missed the point of my "brief" completely.  Your objection does not
>make the statement "go away".  It merely means that we have to use some
>means to figure out if it is true or not.  I'd argue that we have
>implicitly had concesus on whether that statement is true or false.  And
>that concensus is that it is true.
>
>Even if the Administrator's statement is false, your CFJ is false because
>you said that it was because of rule 129, which is false.  So the entire
>CFJ must be false.
>
>Bean

The current form of r129 doesn't say we establish the truth of an Administrator statement that has been objected to; it merely says that "the usual methods for determining the current rules and game state shall apply."  Therefore, when the game state was altered by the Administrator's subsequent un-objected-to statement (hitherto known as S+1), it may have reflected the game state, but it did not reflect the Administrator's objected-to statement (hitherto known as S) being true.

And I'm still not sure it reflected the game state.  We never resolved what "the usual methods" actually means.  If it means "the methods we usually use," that consists of the Administrator telling us what the game state is.  If S+1 rendered the game state as something that didn't reflect S being true, then our "usual methods" of determining the game state failed us right there.

						Glotmorf