On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why? The judgement doesn't contradict CFJ 1307. If you want to > reverse the CFJ 1307 precedent, call a new case.
The arguments explicitly do. Judge Wooble uses "I award a Bean to the player who first assigned a judgment to CFJ 2238" as an example of a situation where the player would be specified, but CFJ 1307 strongly implies that the player would not be adequately specified in that case because we do not have perfect information.
