Re: [s-d] [s-b] [CotC] CFJ 5 assigned to Judge 0x44

[comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx>]

yeah, incorrect judgements don't affect the gamestate.  The ruleset  
can't be ratified but feel free to proprose ratifying it  
(retroactively) if you want to get on with the game.  Personally I  
like 'Bn' though and think it's a shame to remove it in favor of more  
awkward grammar.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 26, 2009, at 10:35 AM, Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 08:31 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 07:33, comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I intend to appeal this with two support.  Rule 105 explicitly  
> > > disallows
> > > simultaneous rule changes.  If those specified by the proprosal are
> > > necessarily simultaneous, they cannot occur at all.
> > comex's reasoning is sound, but I specifically do not support the
> > appeal of this case. It seems to me it is better for the good of the
> > game to allow the judgment to stand as it allows us to get on with  
> > it.
> >
> > Perhaps a ruleset ratification could paper over this issue?
> We'll have to make CFJs self-ratifying before we use them to patch
> gamestate bugs. They aren't quite the same as Consultations...
>
> --
> ais523
>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss