spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ

["Donald Whytock" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/11/02 at 1:55 PM Gavin Doig wrote:

><CFJ>
><statement>
>This statement does not appear in any recognised CFJ.
></statement>
><analysis>
>Per rule 17, "Actions cannot occur unless they are recognized by the
>Administrator", and also "All recognitions and refusals of recognition
>must happen in the same chronological order as the Actions they respond to
>arrived in a Public Forum".
>
>The admin failed to recognise (at least) the proosals incorrectly numbered
>457 and 480 in the correct chronological order. Therefore, by the
>precedent established by, and the same logic as applied in, CFJ 280, no
>player actions have been recognised since then, and thus no player actions
>have taken place since then.
>
>Since this CFJ can only exist as such if it has been recognised by the
>Admin, and it can't be, it does not exist.
>
>[[I believe that if the admin were to issue "a massive version of the
>Daily Recognizer to re-recognize everything in proper sequence" then this
>problem would go away. Well, until the next time...]]
></analysis>
><defendant>
>Baron von Skippy.
></defendant>
></CFJ>
>
>uin,
>for the Reform Rule 17 Committee.

I dunno, guy...I see it this way:

S1: body of actions and proposals that occurred prior to my unrecognized proposals
S2: my unrecognized proposals
S3: body of actions and proposals submitted between the posting of S2 and their belated recognition
S4: body of actions and proposals that occurred after the belated recognition of S2
S5: body of actions and proposals submitted after S4

For simplicity's sake, let's say that S1 has officially occurred.

S2 wasn't recognized, but S3 was.  After S2 was recognized, S4 was recognized too.

Rule 17 seems to say that since S2 wasn't recognized, S3 couldn't be recognized, and therefore S3 didn't officially occur.

Then S2 was recognized.  They were given proposal numbers and everything, and so they officially occurred.

Then S4 was recognized.  But the same logic that said S3 couldn't be recognized before S2 now says S4 can't be recognized before S3.  So S4 hasn't been recognized either.  Which means S5 can't be recognized unless and until S3 and S4 are recognized.

And since this CFJ is part of S5, this CFJ hasn't officially occurred, since it can't be recognized as a CFJ before S3 and S4 (and everything else in S5) is recognized.  Which means this CFJ can't officially be assigned or ruled on until the Administrator re-recognizes S3 and S4, then recognizes S5.

At which point, once this CFJ has been recognized, it'll be false.

At least, that's what my opinion would be regarding this CFJ, should it have actually occurred.

Though I do have to wonder...Why list the Baron as defendant?

						Glotmorf