On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> No, it doesn't. If the outside case is judged true, it implies that A >> is the judge of X, and therefore A judged X incorrectly while B judged >> it correctly (but invalidly). A might later be vindicated by further >> debate of the subject, but there's no reason at that point in time to >> assume that the judge of the outside case is wrong no matter what eir >> judgement actually is. > > Except that's not what happened. Precedent was set otherwise and Murphy > was awarded the paradox win. Important note: this was pre-large judicial > reform so we treated judicial results differently then. -G.
And yet while the Rules now more explicitly spell out that judgements have no effect on the game, that was already game custom when that clarification was introduced. To change a certain situation from a win by paradox to a rather boring confusion-- that would be a greater Rule Change than most, but it happened with no vote, just a shift of opinion. (Then again, rarely do we encounter a paradox as beautiful as that one.)
