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.
In your arguments, you claimed that "for the best interests of the game, the prior judgement MUST CLEARLY be determined to be inappropriate before the appeal case is reassigned or overruled". I agree wrt OVERRULE, but not REASSIGN; one example would be the prior judge having stated a lack of time, but forgetting to become inactive and/or supine; another example, arguably, is the prior judge acting in eir blatant self-interest. > Although we usually don't initiate criminal cases against judges for > having bad arguments (and Goethe sure made a stink about this one) it > was hardly eir duty to fail to address serious issues in the case at > hand, especially when that is against the best interests of the game > (i.e. allowing valid scams). If valid scams should be allowed, then so should valid counter-scams; this alone is a red herring. Your "CFJ 1938 is about to be judged" argument was stronger (I say "was" because, in fact, CFJ 1938 wound up not being judged until a few weeks later). > Because anyone could have made the scam contest cease to be a contest > without 3 objections Not in time to block the initial pay-out.
