On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 19:21 -0400, omd wrote: > ..off-topic: I wonder if ais523 still takes the position (as e wrote > in 2897) that CFJ judgements are generally "fraught with danger" of > "getting the wrong result", i.e. disregarding the meta-rule of > deferring to judge's interpretations where reasonable.
I think it's unwise to rely on a judge's decision being correct for the game to continue to function. In general, I'm of the belief that CFJs don't actually do anything at all except for their rule 217 influence and their effect on the actions of the players. The power of a CFJ is mostly in that players start acting as though its judgement were correct, which in turn typically ends up affecting the gamestate through self-ratification. In particular, this means that judgements about a concrete fact about the gamestate (e.g. "player X has Y shinies") are highly likely to end up causing that fact to become true/false accordingly, even if the judgement in general is wrong. This also means that judgements are more valuable for their immediate value than they are for their precedential value (although the precedential value is definitely not non-zero). In particular, I think that if there's doubt about some aspect of the situation, it's important that a judgement should respect that doubt, at least in its arguments, than that it should attempt to make a definitive ruling at the cost of potentially misleading players as to the gamestate. -- ais523
