Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: __Stand Still!__

["Ed Murphy" <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Glotmorf wrote:

> >Proposal:  __Stand Still!__
> >
> >Amend Rule 128 (Judgement) by appending this text:
> >{{
> >     A Judge shall choose eir response according to the Statement's truth
> >     or falsity at the time of the Call, not at the time of eir Judgement.
> >}}

> I have a problem with this. (Sorry for not responding before proposing
> closed.) My problem is, what about overlapping CFIs, which address issues
> that have to do with one another?  Suppose CFI X addresses a set of
> circumstances, and CFI Y addresses a different set of circumstances, and
> CFI gets judged on, and the result changes the set of circumstances CFI Y
> is based on.  CFI Y is no longer applicable to the situation, because the
> situation's changed.  Yet, per your proposal, CFI Y will still have to be
> judged as per circumstances at the time CFI Y was made, which was before
> CFI X's judgment changed everything.

Then you explicitly refer to a time in one or more statements.

Example:
  "Murphy is not a player"
vs.
  "Murphy was not a player at the end of nweek 16"


-- 
Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>          "I'm not sure I can go through
http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/      with it.  Leave, I mean."