Ed Murphy wrote: >Proposal: The Standing Court The question has recently been raised of whether merely quoting a proposal in this fashion is sufficient to indicate submission of it. You may want to disambiguate.
> A player is ineligible to be Trial Judge of a CFJ if > e was not standing when it was called. That's going to be a problem. Suppose one player is standing and two CFJs are called: you can assign that one player to one CFJ, but then no one becomes eligible for the other, even after a notice of rotation. Actually, I think the one player remains eligible for the second CFJ, opening up room for abuse. I think "was not standing when it was called" should be "is not standing", so that it is standingness at the time of assignment that matters. -zefram
