Joel Uckelman on Tue, 7 Apr 2009 03:45:51 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] fire and water

Thus spake Alex Smith:
> On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 23:45 +0200, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> > Thus spake comex:
> > > 2009/3/30 comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:11 AM, Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx> wro
> te:
> > > >> I believe that A is dead due to the Statute of Limitations. I see no
> > > >> reason for you to change lists.
> > > >
> > > > It is entirely possible that I've missed a message and corresponding
> > > > RFJ from some time in the last few years. =A0Which message claimed to
> > > > end A, and where was the RFJ called on it?
> > > 
> > > Joel: Any info on this?
> > 
> > I don't have time to look right now. At some point I declared the game
> > over on the business list, and no one disputed it for enough nweeks for
> > the statute of limitations to end the game.
> comex thinks he found a bug in the statute of limitations: it only
> applies if someone actually calls an RFJ on the matter.

No, that's not the correct interpretation of R393/0. Here's the text:

  No Judgement shall change the effect of actions performed more than two
  nweeks before the corresponding RFJ was made, even if those actions were
  illegal or impossible. Such actions shall always be treated as if they
  were legal and possible.

The rule is about what RFJs can reverse. The reversibility of an action by
RFJ doesn't depend on there actually being an RFJ made about it, just on
the amount of time elapsed since the action.

spoon-discuss mailing list