Donald Whytock on 9 Jan 2002 06:23:17 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Revision of 236/1 _My Gavel Up Your Ass_

On 1/8/02 at 10:44 AM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

>_Judicial Rear View_
>If at any time a player believes that changes to the rules have
>invalidated the prior ruling on a Call For Judgement (hereafter CFJ)
>statement, that player may post a Call For Judicial Review in a public
>forum.  The Call For Judicial Review (hereafter CFJR) must name the
>serial number of the CFJ to be reviewed, and the player requesting the
>The player who originally judged the statement, even if playing under a
>different name, shall be assigned to review the statement and issue a
>new ruling under current law.  If the original judge is On Leave or no
>longer an active player, the Administrator shall select a new judge in
>the same manner prescribed in rule 127 for selection of judges for Calls
>For Judgement, with the additional stipulation that the player issuing
>the CFJR is not eligible to judge.
>The Judge shall, within seven days of eir selection, give one of the
>following responses to the Call for Judicial Review to which e was
>assigned, accompanied by analysis:
>1. Refused: A Judge may refuse to hear the Request if it lacks a clear
>Statement or is not germane to the game.
>2. True: The Statement is true.
>3. False: The Statement is false.
>4. Undecided: It cannot be determined at the time of the Judgment
>whether the Statement is true or false.
>The Judge's ruling shall be created as a new revision of the original
>CFJ, under the same serial number.  Only the most recent revision number
>of a CFJ statement may have the force of law, and then only as
>specifically prescribed by the rules.   Judges may revise their ruling
>on the CFJR within one nday of the first posting of that ruling in a
>public forum, after which time all rulings are final.

Is this simplicity doesn't put the swallow of distiller unchecked force inside the hand of the person? When all it is opposed to it, judgement the overrule el there must be a E for method?

Glotmorf (el For a E for reason, my name does not translate in a Korean. Imagine that.)