On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@bham.ac.uk> wrote: >> (Otherwise it could be interpreted as giving the judge the choice of >> true or false in the case of negative judgements. And we wouldn't >> want that, now would we?) > We may as well do, although a judge submitting a proposal that was > directly opposite to their judgement would certainly raise eyebrows, and > probably cause the proposal to fail.
Not necessarily: if a judgement ruled that a scam worked, removing the scam would be much more useful than, say, changing the rules to assert that the scam is possible.
