Re: [s-d] Judgement draft

[shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx]

So what you're saying is that the judge does not need to modify the
game state because once e's clarified the rules then the rules do it
for him?

Well, that makes sense.  But I'm uggered if I know whether it works.

What if the rule says "at point x in the game if y happened, give
Antonio 10 points."  And you ask for a judgement on whether y
happened.  And it goes in your favour.  I could (perversely,
awkwardly) argue that since we're no longer at point x, the rules no
longer grant you the points.

Whether it would work out like that in practice is certainly not in my
experience - I haven't even seen the end of a game week yet...

On 11/24/06, Antonio Dolcetta <antonio.dolcetta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 24 Nov 2006, at 22:41, shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> >> 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.
> >
> > So if I ask for a judgement on the statement "I have won because X"
> > the judge  can reply true or false but e doesn't have the power to
> > grant me a Win?
> >
> > Note that I'm not saying that I think it wouldn't work.  I'm asking
> > how it would work.
> >
>
> Umm, to explain the idea behind it i'll make an example:
>
> suppose you submit the statement: "X", further Reasoning that X
> follows from Y and Z.
>
> If the judgment is: true, then it means that yes, since Y and Z it
> must also be X. If X is "i should win", the administrator (or whoever
> hands out the wins) acknowledges that this is the official
> interpretation of the rules, and is "forced" to grant you a win.
> If the judgment is false, then the official interpretation of the
> rules is that X does not follow from Y and Z, if necessary the
> judge's Reasoning might even say that from Y and Z comes W, and if W
> is "Antonio has 15 points", then whoever grants points gives Antonio
> his points, because the rules already say so, but their
> interpretation was unclear, and the RFJ cleared it up.
> Is it really necessary to explicitly give the judge the power to
> modify the gamestate ?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>


-- 
It's Like This

Even the Samurai
Have teddy bears
And even the teddy bears
Get drunk
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss