On May 29, 2008, at 10:05 PM, comex wrote:
On 5/29/08, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But the CFJ isn't over *appropriate* judgements, it's over
assigning a
judgement at all.
Umm, that's just a wording thing. What I was attempting to try em for
is failing to augment the ambiguity in the Rules with respect to
whether equations can be contests with game custom, common sense, past
judgements, and/or consideration of the best interests of the game,
when e submitted that judgement. In other words, for making a
woefully inadequate judgement, CFJ 1651-style.
I don't see how eir decision to reassign merits the weight of
criminal liability, and I strongly disagree with calling it
"woefully" inadequate. And that's on top of my stance that this
whole criminal CFJ is not in the spirit of the game.
So what am I missing? It's probably glaringly obvious if I just look
off to the side.
-----
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
