On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 1:14 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
>
> Actually, I was asked by ais523 to add to a CfJ a clarification on
> something, a 'sub-Judgement' of a sort.
>
> Would've it been possible for me to, for example, Judge TRUE, but also add
> a sub-Judgement that from here on, we should play according to the
> interpretation that would make it FALSE (that is, that you can only anoint
> once)? Like that, we would avoid the blindside issue, but also end up with
> the newer interpretation established.
That would be a first AFAIK. In disambiguating a specific piece of
rules text, I don't think we've ever done "it meant X up to this
moment but means Y after this". The one exception being whether
something is common knowledge ("this CFJ has discussed the matter to
death so if it wasn't common knowledge before, it sure is now").
Instead we do "it meant X and we are now changing it to Y via changing
the rules text."
I'm not saying it can't be done. It can be a standard practice in
casual board gaming ("we played that way for 2 turns but then someone
googled the errata so let's switch now") but it would be a fairly big
cultural shift which I'm just guessing would be a real hard sell for
any potential Moot voters via a single CFJ?
-G.
