On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Elliott Hird wrote: > Standing precedent is that LW didn't work, right? I've never seen a copy > of the rules at the time so it'd be hard to tell...
Standing precedent is that it split the game into two wholly internally consistent interpretations, one that it worked, one that it didn't work. Each state (internally) could declare itself valid. So, UNDECIDABLE, which required a metagame reunification. Back when it was going on, both sides were arguing vociferously from within their own interpretation (and the sides were really evenly split) so it took time and hindsight and an outside system (i.e. Agora) as a meta-judge to (sort-of) formalize it. It's also why I'm a little sensitive to judicial-system scams. -Goethe
