Goethe wrote:
Murphy wrote:
R1871 makes turned players ineligible to be a Trial Judge of a given
CFJ, but neither R1871 nor R911 makes them ineligible to be either a
Judge in general or an Appellate Judge in particular.
Y'know, I didn't buy this when I was assigning judges last month,
but I didn't push it. There's only one way to formally judge a CFJ,
that is, to be a Trial Judge. Being an Appellate judge is judging
a judgement, not judging a CFJ, according to R1564. Given that, the
only way that:
iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection.
can be reasonably interpreted is that "ineligible to judge a CFJ"
means "ineligible to be a trial judge of that CFJ."
Yes, I think it's broken.
On the other hand, the players in question are arguably eligible to
be assigned as class-less Judges of the CFJ, e.g. via the adoption
of a proposal.
Yes, I'm thinking of an analogy to the Mousetrap.
