On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: > Judge allispaul's Arguments: > Importantly, a valid Notice of Violation has the > effects it describes. CFJ 2481 and the associated cases are of note > here: though the NoV's in question were certainly incorrect, they were > valid and had the effect of creating Rests in the possession of > players.
Hmm, there's two possible ways an incorrect election notice can be VALID. (1) It can be VALID in initiating an election, even though it's incorrect in some specified detail; but the platonic "correct" information governed in the rules is what really happened (e.g. its really only first-class players who were eligible), or (2) it can be VALID and the incorrect information can overrule the platonic state. We've tended towards (1) in general, except when (2) involves something that has ratified; any particular reason for favoring (2) here? The court case you mention doesn't seem to quite cover it unless I'm misreading it. Just curious as to your thoughts because IMO it's a bit of a (not necessarily wrong) shift. -G.
