Daniel Lepage on Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:46:24 -0500 (CDT)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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



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