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

["Donald Whytock" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
>CFJR.
>
>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.
>}}
>
>
>--Scoff!

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.)