I humbly and un-regulated-ly withdraw any objection I had to Quazie's judgement here. In rapidly cutting and pasting lots of judgements into the database yesterday, I completely misread/misinterpreted the way e rephrased the CFJ statement. Looking at it for more than 2 minutes now, it's a fine judgement.
On Mon, 29 May 2017, Quazie wrote: > I am happy to reconsider of you lemme know where I over stepped. > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 21:17 Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am willing to support reconsidering this CFJ on behalf of G. if there > is interest among the players for reconsideration. > 天火狐 > > On 28 May 2017 at 21:18, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > I'm just catching up to this CFJ now, and I have to say I'd consider > this an example of judicial overreach and motion to reconsider were I a > player. Rather than extrapolating slightly to generalize the question, > or slightly changing the wording of the CFJ to answer what the caller > *meant* to ask, this uses a judgement to try and sent precedent on an > entirely different matter. If this were allowed we'd have to let judges > opine on anything, unrelated to their CFJ topic, and consider it > precedent.
