Zefram 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.
I still think the preponderance of the evidence says "yes", even in
the case previously under question (where it might be intended to
identify a proposal to be retracted), much less in this case where
no such alternative intent really suggests itself.
I would support the interpretation of (say) a message with "Proto"
in the subject but not the body (or vice versa) as failing to clearly
indicate intent, since there are a reasonable number of past cases
("Proto" in both subject in body) that (1) resemble that case and (2)
were clearly not intended to constitute proposal submission.
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.
I think you're right. I think the current rule is broken in a similar
fashion, but fortunately Rule 2133 rides to the rescue yet again.
