On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, woggle wrote: > I note that Fool's alleged scam makes the CFJ system in the rules essentially > unusable for resolving it.
Your solution doesn't in itself work. This situation leaves us without an in-game way for both sides to mutually agree on a method of arbitration. It's possible that the resulting arguments (on both sides) might depend on whether you accept some fundamental axiom to begin with (e.g. what model of logic is to be followed), with completely self-consistent logic supporting either side once the axiom set is selected. If we have no agreed-upon way of selecting the axioms, the game can split. This sort of split is precisely why Lindrum World was so divisive - not the idea of a dictatorship in and of itself, but because the two sides "emotionally" decided which axiom set they preferred, then basically tried to convince the other side as to which were the "true" axioms. The solution was substantial "out-of-game" work to converge the two states to the same outcome (a fixed ruleset). Then both sides might argue about how they got there, but not argue about where they were. That's why it becomes difficult if the states have diverged in a way that's important to both sides (such as the repeal of R101) as it makes it difficult for the two sides to reconcile and move on. -G.
