On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:35 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Screw CFJ 1307. R217 tells us that the rules are to be augmented with both game custom and past judgements. It does not assign any specific weighting, and it especially does not say that ancient judgements automatically trump modern custom. The only reason I pointed out was to note how the times have changed. -root
