Re: [s-d] Re: [s-b] As promised, a CFI

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Oct 28, 2004, at 2.19 AM, Jeremy Cook wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 02:02:00AM -0400, Daniel Lepage wrote:
> > If this goes through, it will Take Time to implement.
> >
> > Y'know, it would be nice if there were some way for a judge to tack
> > 'suggested remedies' onto a CFI, so that the judge here could propose 
> > a
> > nice set of gamestate changes that wouldn't require me to redo an
> > nweek's worth of actions.
>
> I just noticed that a Judgment doesn't actually do anything at all.
> There's nothing in any of the Rules currently that says that a
> Judgment has any effects on the gamestate.

We don't really need it to, though. The CFI is there to resolve an 
ambiguity in the rules, and it's not so much a hard-and-fast lawmaking 
tool as a means of reaching an agreement.

If this CFI is judged TRUE, then I at least will abide by the 
interpretation of the rules established by the CFI; the CFI won't 
actually have altered the gamestate at all, we'll just suddenly become 
aware that the state is different than we thought.

I actually wonder if it wouldn't be easier to turn CFIs into something 
more like A La Carte proposals: you'd vote TRUE or FALSE on the 
statement, and YES or NO on the suggested gamestate remedies.

--
Wonko

I don't know anything about music. In my line you don't have to.
    - Elvis Presley

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss