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

[Jeremy Cook <athena@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 11:46:19AM -0400, Daniel Lepage wrote:
> 
> 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.

Previous versions of r128 have contained such things as:

A Judge's decision shall have the force of law. 
(r128/2)

and

If an Action is found to be illegal by a CFJ, it may not be recognized
by the Admin or, if it already was, it is treated as if it were not
recognized. If an Action which the Admin refused to recognize is found
to be legal by a CFJ, it shall be treated as if it were recognized. 
(r128/5)

It would be nice to have something explicit on what to do with the
ruling for cases like the current CFI.

> 
> 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.

That's TPR's Judgment as soon as it's appealed. But I'm not sure what
the interpretation of the rules established by this CFI is. If it's
TRUE, what happens to the Cards? When I wrote it, I figured they went
back in the Deck, and this is written in the Argument. There's more than
one way for the statement to be True; the Judge should clear this up.

> 
> 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.

The way I'd suggest:

The original judge rules on the statement and makes up a gamestate
remedy. The Appellate court can either send it back to the lower court,
with a different judge, or uphold the ruling, or refuse to hear the
appeal. The gamestate remedy can be the suggested one, or a completely 
different one, and the Plaintiff doesn't have to suggest one.

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