root wrote: > 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.
After the win was awarded, one of the judgements (Sherlock's IIRC, and e was annoyed about it) was indeed overruled on appeal. I believe this provided the impetus for Rule 591's "do not directly affect" clause.
