ais523 wrote: > On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 13:03 -0400, comex wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Roger Hicks <pidge...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Note that I intentionally withheld an opinion, because my opinion >>> would be to AFFIRM with an error rating. I'm still of the opinion that >>> the conditions can not be ANDed together or the rule would have been >>> broken all along. The only logical way to interpret the rule is to OR >>> the conditions. I realize I may be alone in this belief. I recommend >>> the Justicar REASSIGN. >> NoV: BoBTHJ violated Rule 911 (Power-1.7) by failing to publish an >> opinion on CFJ 2670a ASAP after a panel containing em was assigned. >> >> I contest this and initiate a criminal case, requesting double ress >> because e freely admitted to withholding an opinion to obstruct the >> rest of the panel. (I don't object to this from a gameplay >> perspective, but I do object to scams that violate the rules.) > > Arguments: CFJ 2670a may not have existed in the first place.
Arguments: If CFJ 2670a does exist, then it has not had a panel assigned to it (the panel allegedly assigned was ineligible because ehird was supine), so definitely NOT GUILTY.
