Re: [s-d] 113.3 Administrator's Update

["Peter Cooper Jr." <pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Jake Eakle" <jseakle@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I appear to have something of a dilemma. Section four of Rule 2-5,
> "Accepting RFJs", says
>
> "The selected Judge shall as a Game Action accept eir assigned RFJ by
> changing it's state to Accepted."
>
> This appears to me to mean that I *must* accept my assigned RFJ, but that I
> must do this by changing its state to Accepted. However, there appears to be
> no way for me to so change its state. Also, under the current definition of
> Game Action, it doesn't really make sense for me to perform one "by" doing
> something other than posting to a public forum stating that I do. So even if
> there was a way for me to change its state to Accepted, I don't think that
> would be a valid way to perform a Game Action.

You raise an interesting point. However, since the rule on Game
Actions (r1-10) states that "The Rules also have the power to cause an
Outsider to take Game Actions whether e posts or not.", it seems that
maybe r2-5 empowers the selected judge to change the state to
Accepted, and perhaps the player does it whether they post or not. (I
think someone else mentioned that this was the case.)

> Also, once the above is somehow resolved and I have successfully accepted my
> RFJ, I appear to have another dilemma. First, the same section goes on to
> say
>
> "The selected Judge may also change the RFJ's state to Invalid, if e
> considers the contained Statement to be unclear, ambiguous, or irrelevant."
>
> but right below that, in the next section, it says
>
> "Once an RFJ is Accepted, the selected Judge shall as a Game Action render
> Judgment on it to the best of eir knowledge of the Rules. "
>
> and
>
> "Once Judgment is rendered, the state of the RFJ becomes Resolved"
>
> This seems to imply that as soon as it's accepted, ie, before I get a chance
> to change it to Invalid, I have to render judgment on it, and that once I
> do, it becomes resolved. However, it doesn't say I'm no longer the selected
> judge, after that, so I guess I can still change its state to Invalid
> *after* I've rendered judgment on it, causing it to only guide further
> interpretation of the rules for a very short time.
>
> I don't really think this is what was intended though.

Well, I think that while it's accepted, and before you render a
ruling, you can change it to Invalid. The Rules can't really force you
to rule TRUE or FALSE on it immediately without your posting to a
forum, since how could it know what your decision was?

But I do think that you can change it to Invalid after rendering a
judgment, in any case.

I'd welcome a rules change or RFJ clarifying all this, although we may
end up in an interesting situation where a ruling on a RFJ says that
that own ruling was invalid. That sounds like a pretty classic paradox
to me. Should be fun. :)

In the meantime, I'm going to allow players to render rulings and
change RFJs assigned to them to Invalid, at least until someone
determines that them doing so isn't legal.

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