On Sun, 2016-10-23 at 18:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > By the way, if you find areana failed in eir duty, it's ok to extend > your > arguments to the further question of Alexis's scam versus my counter- > scam. While you can't opine officially, if your arguments are persuasive, > we've been known to accept "arguments beyond the specific brief" and not > call the follow-up question separately. (of course someone may still call > a follow-on case if they want to, but just saying it's not frowned-upon to > exceed your brief on occasion in arguments and opine on such follow-up > questions, especially if speed is an issue).
IMO the only reason to call (inquiry) CFJs is for the judge's arguments (and any other arguments that might be raised). The actual verdict doesn't actually do anything, and thus is fairly arbitrary, whereas the arguments influence the way players play in future. As such, answering a different question in the arguments is both fairly common, and fairly useful. -- ais523
