Michael wrote:
We can agree as a matter of fact that Goethe did or did not send
particular messages to the public forum, but the legal effect of such
messages can be changed by ratification or proposal.
Pedantic side note: it's the legal effect of one of my messages,
not Goethe's, that was in question.
Also, two questions for Goethe: if the original paradox was resolved
by appeal, (1) do you think it would work and (2) would it convince
you to re-register? To review, here's how that might work:
* Potential gamestate #1 = Goethe was deregistered in December. In
this gamestate, Sherlock's judgement of CFJ 1594 is appealed and
reversed. The gamestate thus becomes consistent; Sherlock's
judgement was indeed a judgement, albeit (by decision of the Board
of Appeals) an incorrect one. Also, Proposal 4882 becomes a null
operation, as it deems that which is judicially true anyway.
* Potential gamestate #2 = Goethe was not deregistered in
December. This gamestate is self-inconsistent, thus it goes away
in favor of #1. If we really want to emphasize the point, then
we could appeal and sustain Goethe's judgement of CFJ 1594.
Game custom states that an Appeals Judge should not overturn a
reasonable judgement (and we all seemed to agree that both judgements
were reasonable) simply because e would have chosen a different
interpretation. However, there is another reason at work here,
namely the desire to resolve a paradox.
