On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I intend to call for appeal of CFJ 2979 with 2 support.
>
> Arguments:
> On timing, this is a pretty strong tradition the judge is bucking here,
> without reasonable justification. The tradition is that doing the
> following in one message:
> I set up gamestate X;
> I CFJ on whether the gamestate is X;
> I replace gamestate X with Y;
> that the CFJ SHOULD be judged based on that interim "moment" before Y.
> I think bucking this tradition radically degrades the convenience of
> setting up test situations and ending them cleanly, and this judgement,
> if upheld or not appealed, would add an arbitrary and capricious aspect
> of judicial "choice" to CFJ timing.
Addendum:
If this judgement holds, then in the following case:
1. I set up gamestate A;
2. I CFJ on "the gamestate is A"
3. I replace gamestate A with B.
the judge could arbitrarily pick between true, false, undetermined,
or undecidable. This is not a particularly beneficial interpretation
of judicial timing.
