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

["Donald Whytock" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/5/02 at 2:18 PM Iain.Scott.01@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>Ruling: FALSE
>
>Analysis: r129/2 does not say that ?the game state is altered to a
>state that doesn't include that statement? if it is objected to, it
>says ?the usual methods for determining the current rules and game
>state shall apply? if a statement is objected to.  I disagree with
>Glortmorf?s later argument that r129/2 implies that an ?objected to?
>and incorrect statement is removed from the game state.
>Hence the game state is _not_ altered per r129/2, and this CFJ is FALSE.
>
>[[If it worked at all, I consider r129/2 to have said that, for a given
>statement, S, by the administrator:
>If S was correct, and no one objected to it, we continue play.
>If S was incorrect, but unnoticed within 20 days, we just continued
>playing (even if we later noticed after 20 days).
>If S was incorrect, but noticed within 20 days, we would have to go
>back and rectify our knowledge of the game state, effectivly beginning
>again from just before the statement.
>But if S is correct, and someone objects (as in this case, the rules
>are clear on the subject of what goes on the ballot), the objection
>really has no effect on the game state at all.]]
>
>
>cheers,
>Iain

So...basically my fundamental contention that r129/2 is doing something bad is met by the fundamental contention that it's actually not doing anything at all...:)

						Glotmorf