I would like to take up this case, if no one else wants it.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> Stating an intention to break a rule isn’t against the rules. No
> infraction, no card.
>
> -o
>
> > On May 25, 2017, at 12:34 AM, Quazie wro
Stating an intention to break a rule isn’t against the rules. No infraction, no
card.
-o
> On May 25, 2017, at 12:34 AM, Quazie wrote:
>
> It would also be nice if the Referee had enough power to call a delay of
> game, and refuse the judge emself (but id like that to some how be possible
>
It would also be nice if the Referee had enough power to call a delay of
game, and refuse the judge emself (but id like that to some how be possible
without writing that explicit action into the ruleset).
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 21:32 Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 06:17 +0200, CuddleB
On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 06:17 +0200, CuddleBeam wrote:
> The reason for this is that while I consider this CFJ a totally legit
> bypass to the finger-pointing system, I don't find myself capable of
> actually formally submitting the judgement on such a high-profile conflict
> out of simple cowardice,
This is a frustrating action - I suggest a rule chsnge allowing a judge to
refuse emself with some penalty (ineligible to judge for some period of
time)
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 21:17 CuddleBeam wrote:
> While I personally 100% agree with Gaelan and I believe that the verdict
> of CFJ 3509 should
5 matches
Mail list logo
