Josiah Worcester wrote: > This has been a few weeks of argument >over what amounts to a single VC. Let's just get a ruling on the >books and *leave it*, shall we?
The VC is pretty insignificant. (It's one of mine, isn't it, and I have it iff CFJ 1711 is true? If that's the case and it's ultimately ruled that I do have it, I'll donate it to pikhq.) More troublesome is that proposals will have been adopted in a different order from what was previously believed. I (still) haven't determined whether this makes any difference to the text of any rules. If it does, we may have quite a lot of game state to recalculate. I originally recorded the proposals as adopted due to Murphy's original notice, believing it to be correct. When e published the correction, on the same day, I thought that that message now definitively resolved the decisions, and thus made no difference to the outcome because the proposals were adopted in the same order on the same day. Then another batch of proposals was (definitely) adopted, *then* came Murphy's complete restatement of results for the troublesome batch. I didn't recalculate the rule state based on the proposals being resolved by the later restatement, because I was quite sure that the earlier correction had resolved them. I didn't even do this recalculation when Eris judged CFJ 1711, because the appeal got underway very quickly. I also left the proposal database pointing at the original incorrect notice, when the matter became controversial, in order to avoid having to correct it twice. I finally changed that database today based on pikhq's judgement, which I (foolishly) expected to stand. A prompt result to CFJ 1711 (plus its appeals) that overturned my initial opinion would have been slightly annoying, but not really problematic. But now it's been almost three months. As the judicial process has dragged on, we've become more and more practically tied to the CFJ1711-true state. If you want a pragmatic resolution now, you must AFFIRM. -zefram
