On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 15:50 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > The problem on putting the onus on the CFJ caller, here, is that e may > not be the best person to know the information. If the caller responds, > effectively, "go on, then, continue playing with unknown gamestate", or > worse, doesn't call the CFJ in the first place, then that puts the > Registrar in a very difficult position; e can report Myndzi's playership > as disputed, but continuing for ages with unknown registration statuses > could really be damaging to Agora (c.f. Annabel, but probably not quite > as bad unless Myndzi starts taking actions).
I think I expected the best outcome was for someone interested in it to take a few moments to collect the day's discussion in an understandable set of arguments and re-call the case (like you've done sometimes in complicated situations); this particular UNDETERMINED seemed without prejudice so it doesn't itself imply the whole situation is indeterminable. It just seems easier than an appeal. I also think part of the problem is we've gotten much blurred about arguments: for example, if I perform an action and then call a CFJ later in the message, the action doesn't remain associated with the case unless the caller is careful to do so/recopy the action. Wooble is generally pretty good with calling cases but here I just read the CotC's case assignment message itself and couldn't make head or tail out of the situation. -G.
