On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 03:09, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Aaron Goldfein > <aarongoldf...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I intend, with two support, to appeal this case. I request a with >> prejudice ruling as Judge omd inappropriately discharged eir duties in >> this case. > > Gratuitous: The lack of arguments aside, without any evidence as to > what sort of list you were asking about, the statement *is* too vague: > if you mean that all Golems must be included in the list, it's > trivially true because Slave Golems are the only type of Golem, and > Slave Golems that are not players are destroyed (and no rule seems to > prevent this mechanism from working as expected), but if you mean that > the list must contain an explicitly denoted sublist of Golems, it is > trivially false. If there is a reason I'm not seeing why this is not > trivially true or false and worth CFJing, you should include it as > arguments.
The actual judgement on the case is not what I'm getting at here, as it is rather trivial. The purpose of this appeal is to challenge the process of judges discharging their duties and deliberately assigning inappropriate opinions on cases. Inappropriately discharging your duties violates a SHOULD requirement in this way, and, while it is not strictly speaking illegal, I am putting forth this case to attempt to maintain the significance of SHOULDs.
