Ed Murphy wrote: > The Clerk of the Courts may (without 2 objections) turn a player > e expects to judge CFJs slowly or not at all.
What's this supposed to mean? Sounds like a barbecuing procedure. > When the Clerk of the Courts publishes a Notice of Rotation, all > players become unturned. The Clerk of the Courts shall only do Please explicate whether a Notice of Rotation is effective when published illegally. > so when all open CFJs without a Trial Judge have no players > eligible to be assigned, and at least one of them has at least > one player ineligible solely to being turned; e shall list all > CFJs in the first set, and at least one in the second. Listing all outstanding CFJs is a tricky requirement. I see why you want to require it, though. How about "at least one open CFJ without a Trial Judge assigned and no players eligible to be assigned has at least one player ineligible due solely to being turned, and all CFJs that were called earlier than this CFJ either have a Trial Judge assigned or have no players eligible to be assigned"? Also, the "without a Trial Judge" bit makes a presumption about court procedure that won't necessarily hold. Dismissed CFJs, for example, may have no Trial Judge and not be due to get one. I suggest that you replace "without a Trial Judge" with "with a Trial Judge assignment pending". > selection stands. However, if the player has not yet delivered > judgement, then the Clerk of the Courts may point out eir error > and recuse the player. I'd rather we just make the assignment stand, without the option to reassign. Also, possibly a better way to draft the whole thing: since it is possible to assign a turned player, e's not really ineligible. Perhaps the whole Rule should be recast that way, so that being turned doesn't make a player ineligible but does make it illegal (although possible) to assign em. -zefram
