> Judge's Arguments: > > I was considering playing along with this, but frankly, given > everything that's happened, I'm not in the mood. Even the caller has > practically admitted that this CFJ is frivolous (the message was > entitled "A little levity"). The only sensible reading of the rule is > that "no Player shall be prohibited" means roughly "a player shall not > be prohibited". This is so abundantly clear it isn't even worth > talking about (see also common sense, affixed). Further, no evidence > has been provided that a player named "no player" even existed at the > time of the addition of that rule. Under the precedent set by CFJ > 1520, the existence of such a player would be required for the > reference to be complete. > > I judge this case FALSE. Additionally, for the initiation of a frivolous > case, I (unofficially) sentence o to Shame. I realize we have a > tradition of having such cases on occasion, but given the current > judicial overload I think this is in bad taste at the moment.
I am duly Shamed. My sense of timing could have been _significantly_ better on that one. Thanks for humouring me far enough to render a verdict - and, I think, thanks for not rendering a TRUE verdict. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
