Ed Murphy on Thu, 15 Apr 2010 06:13:24 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] [Oracle] CFI 111

JamesB wrote:

>> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 14:46:26 -0700
>> From: rideau3@xxxxxxxxx
>> To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [s-b] [Oracle] CFI 110 reassignment
>> I call for inquiry on the following statement: "A Refresh Proposal can 
>> cause a Rule Change."
>> Arguments: There is no definition of taking effect, so the ordinary 
>> definition of taking affect applies to Refresh Proposals, which means 
>> that they go and change the game state. However, there is no explicit 
>> text indicating that Refresh Proposals change the rules, and so Rule 22 
>> may prevent them from changing the rules. While it is clear that the 
>> Refresh Proposal made sure that it is David, I do not know whether the 
>> Refresh Proposal amended Rule 10.
> This is CFI 111. I assign CFI 111 to Judge Murphy.
> Gratuitous Arguments: Refresh proposals take effect, that means that if
> they say they change the rules then that is included in their taking
> effect ("take effect" is subject to interpretation using its normal
> definition). This means that rule changes are implicit in the words
> "take effect" and so work as Rule 22 allows implicit permission of
> rule changes ("Changing the Rules is permitted only as explicitly or
> implicitly described by a Rule..."). It should also be noted that the
> most recent refresh proposal attempted to modify Rule 3, not Rule 10.

I think I've been auto-recused due to Rule 41.  I recommend that the
new judge note my gratuitous arguments at
(which basically agree with JamesB) and judge TRUE accordingly.
spoon-discuss mailing list