Re: [s-d] $wgLogo

[shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx]

This is the last time I will enter into discussion on this matter.  I
think that it's getting a bit silly.

What would you folks have me do?  2-5 says "the selected judge shall
as a game action render judgement on it to the best of eir knowledge
of the rules".  I did that.  At no time does it add "while keeping as
many players happy as possible".


> It is possible, however, to judge on a statement like that and, in
> doing so, answer the reasoning.

It is sometimes possible, but in no way required by the rules.

> Example: you could have ruled that the statement was False, [...]
> Or you could have ruled it True [...]
> Or you could have declared it Invalid with the reasoning that [...]

Or I could have ruled it invalid with the reason that I did not think
it was a valid RFJ.  Which I did.  And which I am allowed to do by the
rules.

> Any one of these rulings would have A) answered the Statement, and B)
> answered the implicit question about the interpretation of the rules.

And (C) not been a true representation of my reading of the rules.  So
my doing so would mean that I had not obeyed 2-5.

> I don't mean to say that what you did was wrong - it was perfectly
> within your power to do what you did, and I agree that it's
> preferable for RFJs to contain the real statement they want judged,
> rather than indirectly referencing the effects of the interpretation.

No, it's not preferable; it's mandatory.  (In my opinion, obviously.)


> However, since you didn't do anything like the above, somebody will
> probably have to re-RFJ the issue, and if it turns out that the
> ruling changes what happened, then Peter may have to go back even
> further to fix the numbers of the props.

Unless RFJ #2 is found true.  And assuming that you can RFJ an RFJ,
which I don't believe you can at the moment.  Although I do hope that
proposal 44 passes; I voted for it.

What all this palaver says to me is: since a large number of you are
clearly unhappy with my ruling but can't do much about it - the RFJ
system is clearly not fit for purpose.  We need an RFJ appeal
procedure.  Or we need to swap to The Mob.


> With regards to legally submitting an RFJ, the rule as it reads right
> now doesn't specify what an RFJ needs to be about. It just says that
> as long as there is any disagreement about the interpretation of the
> rules (which is usually true), then anyone can RFJ anything. This is
> perhaps suboptimal.

More than that, I would say that it was not what the author of the
proposal "intended".  And there's the rub, isn't it?  Would you like
me to read RFJ's as they were intended, not as they were written; but
read the rules as they were written, but not as they were intended?

In any case I think I've answered the point already - it seems to me
perfectly fair to render an RFJ invalid if the statement does not bear
any resemblance to "disagreement with the rules"; or, if you like,
with the reasoning.


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