On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 13:52 -0400, omd wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:18 AM, ais523 <[email protected]> wrote: > > The caller has provided no argument why the verdict in question is > > necessarily incorrect, so AFFIRM seems appropriate here. Thinking about > > it, I'm going to violate a SHOULD and opine AFFIRM WITH PREJUDICE, and > > hope that other judges do likewise; after all, if an inquiry CFJ can be > > a punishment, why can't an appeals case be? Then we can argue about > > whether R101 implies a right to appeal appeals even when the rest of the > > rules don't. > > Hmm? Wouldn't that just ding OscarMeyr?
Correct, in a way that's completely meaningless (because e isn't currently a player and it doesn't create Rests), but which is pretty much obviously a punishment. It would be a test of R101 to see if there was a mechanism via which e could reconsider that. -- ais523
