On 4/25/2020 11:51 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> Rereading the rule, it seems the Arbitor CAN make an intent for
> whoever e wants; the restriction on doing it for the judge of the CFJ
> is a should. So I guess maybe we should go that route? I'm tired and
> can't think ATM, I'll see what people have said in the morning.
I think:
- Wooden Gavel, awardable by the Arbitor to the judge of a CFJ
means it's literally not awardable to a non-judge. The "awardable by"
refers back to the "CAN be awarded by the indicated officers" so I think
the "to the judge" is a condition for the CAN.
Anyway, I think my preference (just looking at the overall judgements) is
to award to Falsifian.
