Ed Murphy wrote: >>What's this supposed to mean? Sounds like a barbecuing procedure. > >"cause a player to become turned", then.
It's the whole thing that I have a problem with, not the verb "turn". I really can't make head or tail of it. What's it for? >>Listing all outstanding CFJs is a tricky requirement. > >Not if the database is up to date, A new CFJ can always be called while the Notice is being prepared or in transit. > "CFJ 1607 is assigned to Quazie. > This is a Notice of Rotation, pointing out CFJ 1600. > CFJ 1608 is assigned to Quazie. > This is a Notice of Rotation, pointing out CFJ 1600. > CFJ 1609 is assigned to Quazie." Hmm. In that case we'd want to require a Judge to be assigned to CFJ 1600 before any others. Perhaps that should be part of a Notice of Rotation: a newly unturned Player must be assigned to the cited CFJ. That would enormously reduce the scope for abuse. Another way to express it: assigning a turned player has the side effect of unturning everyone else. That could even be made implicit. >Allowing reassignment when an error is caught quickly leads to greater >adherence to the spirit of Turns for All. I think the situation is rare enough, and by its nature confusing enough, that the risk of further confusion is greater than the benefit of more accurate TfA. We are only talking about *unintentional* TfA violation, remember. >I suppose we could - Notices of Rotation would depend on a CFJ for which >all eligible judges are turned - but I don't think it's any better. I think it's better in that it makes it clearer that assignments to turned players are valid. -zefram
