On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 11:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> CFJ's can never "officially" solve anything. The way the rules have been
> written as long as I've played, if a person doesn't like a verdict, they
> can always try for a different verdict by re-calling the exact same CFJ
> and hoping for a friendly judge.
My understanding of the way the system works is that CFJs on their own
don't do anything (except for acting as an input into the rule 217
tiebreak for when the rules are silent, something that can never
override the actual text of the rules). Rather, if players are
convinced by the judge's arguments, then they play as though the
judgement were correct, and in particular, make reports as though the
judgement were correct. The judgement then eventually ends up affecting
the gamestate via ratification.
Or in other words, what's important in an inquiry judgement isn't the
fact that it's made, but the fact that it typically causes players to
stop challenging reports and/or marking them as uncertain (thus
allowing ratification to happen). This is important for insulating
Agora from judicial scams; if a judgement doesn't convince players that
it's true, it won't have any real effect at all, and so an
intentionally incorrect judgement doesn't really break anything.
(Compare criminal and equity cases, which (back when they existed) did
have a game effect, and which therefore had several scams attempted