Sorry about that, I actually had 2-3 process reasons (i.e. in Motions and
Moots processes) that 2 judges at once would break things enough to
violate R217 - I'd written up the first one (probably the weakest as it
relied on grammar alone) but that's where I stalled out for a while (and
delay was annoying the treasuror) so I just submitted the judgement
without adding the rest.
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Indeed. For example, the earth is inhabited by a person, to wit, it is
> inhabited by Hillary Rodham Clinton (our traditional example
> non-player human). It may also be inhabited by other persons, but that
> doesn't matter. Technically, I believe this acts as an existential quantifier.
>
> -Aris
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 6:12 PM Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 16 Nov 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > > R591 contains:
> > >> When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN assign
> > >> a valid judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so in a
> > >> timely fashion after this becomes possible. If e does not, the
> > >> Arbitor CAN remove em from being the judge of that case by
> > >> announcement
> > > Here, "When a CFJ is ... assigned to a judge" is singular, which implies
> > > that if a CFJ is assigned to 2 judges, then this condition isn't meant.
> >
> > I really don't see how you can deduce that from this grammatical
> > construction unless you've _already_ decided "assigned to" is an n to 1
> > relationship.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Ørjan.
>
