On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, ais523 wrote:
> 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.
Yep! In times when we've had "as a result of an X judgement, the judge
CAN do Y", there had to be 10x the number of rules stating how to undo Y
if the judge was wrong.
Here's a time I tried to outright corrupt the judges into making a bad
decision, as you can see it didn't work (and had no effect on any game
records) even though the first judge played along: https://cfj.qoid.us/1346