On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That doesn't sound like a paradox at all. Judgements do not change > gamestate; they only narrow down the axioms we employ in determining > gamestate. So there was no causal loop of the judgements invalidating > themselves; there was just uncertainty as to which one had actually > happened, dependent wholly upon legal interpretation. The appropriate > thing to do would have been to solicit a new, unambiguous judgement to > resolve the issue.
What's more, whichever judgement had actually happened was clearly incorrect, so a good way to solicit such a judgement would have been to just appeal it. -root
