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

["Gavin Doig" <gmd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> R129 says the game state is altered as if the
> Administrator's statement is true. 
>
Was true at the time, but yes.

> For the game state to be altered upon the truth
> of the Administrator's statement, it presupposes
> the Administrator's statement exists. 
>
Well, duh. ;-)

> After all, if the Administrator's statement existed,
> it would have some effect on the game state
> even without r129.
>
That's not necessarily true. In fact, it's generally false, and is only true in the specific cases where the rules say that the admin's statements have some effect (recognising proosals being the most obvious example). But when he says (for example) "uin gives the sushi to Rob", his statement is just a courtesy to us, and has no effect on the game. The admin's statement that p377 was recognised was one of the statements that has effect when he says it; his statement that it was on the ballot, however, is one of the courtesy ones.

> Yet, by r129, if an Administrator's statement is
> objected to, the game state is not altered to
> reflect the truth of said statement.  The game
> state may not fundamentally change from said
> absence, if it can be determined by CFJs and
> consensus and all, but it specifically was not
> altered to reflect the truth of the objected-to
> statement (again, let's call it S.)
>
Specifically was not altered *by* *rule* *129*. Nowhere does that prevent the gamestate from having been altered by other rules. When the admin recognises P377, the gamestate was altered by the rules governing proosals. So although rule 129 would not *make* the statement true if it was objected to, that doesn't stop the statement from *being* true anyway.

> The game state was altered, however, by the
> first subsequent Administrator statement that
> wasn't objected to (let's call it S+1); 
>
Well, that statement, if it were true anyway, wouldn't actually result in any *change* to the gamestate...

> yet, since
> the game state specifically wasn't altered by S,
> the alteration caused by S+1 still won't result in
> a game state that was altered by S.
>
That only matters if S was false. If S was true anyway, then the S+1 gamestate is the same regardless of whether S was objected to.

> But logic suggests that if the Administrator's
> statement existed, and especially if that statement
> was true, then it must have had an effect on the
> game state.
>
As above, no it doesn't. If the admin says that the gamestate is blue, that doesn't make it blue, except by r129. Likewise, if the admin says that p377 is on the ballot, that doesn't make it true, except by r129. The fact that it is true anyway has nothing to do with whether the admin says it is - unless you're suggesting that everything the admin says *is* the gamestate, even before r129 steps in?

> Since the game state was altered by S+1 in
> a way that specifically didn't stem from a game
> state altered by S, S must not have existed.
>
This is not the case. It was specifically not altered by *r129*; any alterations that other rules may have applied due to S are *not* affected.

uin.
-- 

_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup