Re: [s-d] Judgement draft

[antonio.dolcetta@xxxxxxxxx]

From: Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> On Nov 24, 2006, at 6:26 AM, Antonio wrote:
> 
> > ===Accepting RFJs===
> > The selected Judge shall accept eir assigned RFJ by publicly  
> > changing it's state to Accepted.
> > The selected Judge may also change the RFJ's state to Invalid, if e  
> > considers the contained Statement to be unclear, ambiguous, or just  
> > random jubberish.
> 
> You could add "or irrelevant". No point in filling the site with  
> "RFJ: The sky is blue".

Right.

> 
> > ===Rendering Judgement===
> > Once an RFJ is Accepted, the selected Judge shall render Judgement  
> > on it to the best of eir knowledge of the Rules. Judgement shall  
> > conform to these possibilities:
> > * TRUE: the statement contained in the RFJ is true.
> > * FALSE: the statement contained in the RFJ is false.
> > The Judge may also submit his own Reasoning, explaining how eir  
> > interpretation of the Rules has led to Judgement.
> > Once Judgement is rendered, the state of the RFJ changes to Resolved.
> 
> You might want to mention that any statement about the state of the  
> game refers to the time at which the statement was sent out. That is,  
> if I RFJ: "Wonko has 12 points" and then gain 5 points before it's  
> judged, I don't want to lose my 5 points.

You will notice that the draft does not say that Judges have the power of altering gamestate, they just guide the interpretation of the rules.
Under that assumption do you still think that pointing out that the judgment refers to the time at which the statement was submitted is necessary ?
Do you think that this kind of RFJ implementation will work at all ?

(and anyway, a statement like "Wonko has 12 points" would likely fall under the definition of "ambiguous")




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