Kerim Aydin wrote: >So to return to the point, I'm saying that IF a "correct and reasonable" >argument is given that disqualifies the judge giving it, THEN we have >paradox in game terms, such that "Did person A deliver legal judgement B?" >is UNDECIDABLE, and thus a winning play.
That's not grounds for an UNDECIDABLE judgement. It's grounds for the judge to decide the original issue anew. You still seem to think that a judgement changes the reality, subject to some formal criterion (reasonableness of accompanying argument). But you're not getting this criterion from the rules. The rules merely contain a SHOULD, so we're *never* entirely bound by judgements. We can overrule a judgement for any reason that we find appropriate, whether or not foreseen, including things like "accepting it would deny its judgementhood". Although actually that on its own still isn't a paradox: something that looks like a judgement and has sufficiently persuasive arguments can perfectly well guide play (on an informal basis) without actually being a judgement. -zefram
