root wrote:
> It seems to me that performing the action would satisfy one of the
> orders, but the target could still be penalized at most once for not
> satisfying the remaining orders. If so, this is obviously broken.
Actually, here's a counterargument to it being broken (Rule 1794/8)(d):
"A timing order is valid if and only if it orders the
entity to perform, as soon as possible, a duty specifically
required of em by the Rules [...]
Once e's performed the duty once, it's no longer required of em by the
Rules, so subsequent Timing Orders become invalid (even if they were valid
when first issued). This also works for the present case, where (since
judgement has been delivered) the CotC is no longer required to recuse the
judge at all.
-Goethe
