On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, comex wrote: > 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). > > 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.
Actually, I can date this change in custom. It was Zefram's arrival early 2007 (right after the paradox). E argued fairly strongly for the new way and carried the day. Then e made it explicit in the big judicial reform. Ironically, the discussion/argument was triggered when we started deeming each other pineapples, leading to the "contracts can be persons" judgement which, e assumed, did in fact codify things (even if it was "wrong" as others thought). -G.
