My bad. Just forgot Gaelan
> On May 25, 2017, at 10:32 AM, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > @Gaelan: I have expressed a desire to not be referred to by my real name. > While there is nothing in the rules that prevents you from doing so, I shall > glare at you menacingly for ignore my wishes. > > I have gotten the mailing list to accept 天火狐 as my name as of this message, > and if everything goes well it should use that for the name field of the > email than pulling directly from gmail, hopefully. > > 天火狐 > >> On 25 May 2017 at 13:20, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote: >> This could probably go do DIS, but I’m sending it to BUS just in case. >> >> I would like CFJ’s that focus more on interpreting the rules than abstract >> philosophy. Examples: >> Josh’s ambiguity CFJ - no >> My pink slip CFJ - yes >> That “no Player” CFJ - yes. It is not relevant to current gameplay, but it >> is still a simple reading of the rules and examination of precedent >>> On May 25, 2017, at 7:48 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 14:45 +0000, Quazie wrote: >>>> Is it reasonable to request to you not be eligible for certain >>>> judicial subsets? >>>> >>>> Could I ask to be ineligible for CFJs about Card based actions for >>>> example? >>>> - not that I want this, just asking about the concept. >>> >>> I think that's a reasonable request. Judging some CFJs gives more judge >>> variety than judging none at all. >>> >>> There do need to be limits in case of abuses (e.g. asking only to judge >>> about scams by a particular coconspirator), but that can be partially >>> dealt with by barring, and that sort of bad faith request would be >>> fairly obvious and thus ignorable. >>> >>> -- >>> ais523 >> >
