On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Is there some way to challenge past CFJs? Besides the moot thing, which is
> too late now to do for that.
You can always re-call the same statement or similar. The Judge could say
"CFJ 3580 was decided wrongly, and this is the new decision." However, to
keep issues (this or any other) from see-sawing back and forth every time
someone re-challenges, the new CFJ would probably have to find major reasons
the old one was broken to survive a Moot.
> I also massively disagree with CFJ 3580, for the " Agora exists
> platonically, and so can exist without the rest of reality" thing, for the
> same reasons that CFJ 3622 gave that judgement.
The point is not that it actually exists platonically (or that anything at
all does). The point is that we (collectively as evidenced across the history
of CFJs) prefer the legal fiction that treats the gamestate as a pure "thing"
of which our reports are only shadows on the cave wall. So it's just saying
"this is how we've been implicitly judging in our past CFJs, so let's
acknowledge that." It's a cultural choice that guides future play, not a
physical actuality. Rather than dueling CFJs, the best way to "fix" it is
a simple rule: Just writing R217 to read "the rules will be interpreted such
that it's a collective game rather than a platonic reality" would reverse all
that "tradition" such as it is.
