On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 13:39 +0000, ais523 wrote: > On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 20:33 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > DISCLAIMER: The below is based on the interpretation that ehird was > > > > not a Rebel; CFJ 2897's judgment is ambiguous and under > > > > reconsideration. If it is determined that e was a Rebel, ehird was > > > > the 5th Rebel, Wooble was the 6th Rebel, and the Rebellion succeeded, > > > > reordering the List. > > > > I transfer a prop from ais523 (for ridiculously drawing this out) to > > Murphy (for the excellent multi-game-state tracking). -G. > > I'm having problems with the CFJ in question. The problem is that game > custom and past CFJs give a strong indication that ehird's attempt > failed; but the rules, to me, give a weak indication that it succeeded, > and they take precedence. (As far as I can tell, subject lines are sent > via the fora along with the rest of the message, and the only thing that > could cause that to /not/ take an action is if it's too ambiguous to > succeed. Hidden email headers are one thing, where there's ambiguity > caused by the fact that people might not see the header in question, but > with a plainly visible header like the subject line, in a situation > where the subject line is clearly deliberately changed to take a message > (e.g. because it's a reply to another message and has been deliberately > edited, like it was in ehird's case), I can't see a rules-based reason > to disallow it. > > Additionally, I don't see why everyone's annoyed with me for not judging > this sooner. For one thing, it's II 0 and thus, by definition, > uninteresting and unimportant. For another thing, CFJ judgements are not > definitive. A judgement in this matter is entirely useless if it turns > out to be incorrect. Sure, I could just say TRUE or FALSE with some > reasonable reasoning (which I did!), but that doesn't mean that the > verdict is necessarily platonically correct. If you want certainty about > the gamestate, I suggest you sort it out pragmatically, via urgent > proposal or ratification or whatever; attempting to deduce the platonic > gamestate in a situation as balanced as this is fraught with danger, due > to the chance of getting the wrong result.
You know what? I submit the above as judge's arguments on CFJ 2897 and judge it TRUE, then stand up. I doubt I'll be able to come to a better decision than that; I recommend people reassign the case if they disagree. Even though there's a lot of existing precedent here, I don't see how it fits in with the language of the rules. -- ais523
