RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Calls for Judgement

[Jörg Rathlev <joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> The problem is that the actions we took are *not* considered to be
> legal due to r129 - the "such actions" r129 considers legal are
> those that took place more than 1 nweek ago, not those which took
> place in nweek 1 (which you merely cannot call a cfj on).

Ahh, *now* I see the problem. That's not exactly what I wanted the
rule to do, but you're right.


> As for whether a cfj on our scores is legal, it depends on what you
> interpret the "regarding" clause as.

Yes, I thought about that as well. I think you could get around this
by saying the CFJ is about the administrator's actions (failing to
accurately determine our current score). But anyway, it's now up to
the judges to decide if they'll reject the CFJs.


Joerg