Peter Cooper Jr. on Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:06:20 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] $wgLogo

shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx writes:
> Well, I think that's a good idea, except that it would mean that you
> could make an RFJ on an RFJ.

RFJs on RFJs seem perfectly reasonable to me, if there's a question
about whether something is actually on RFJ or the entity assigned to
is an Eligible Judge or something like that.

> The rules currently say that the first RFJ would still stand - I
> think - but even so it could be a recepie for argument...

I don't think the rules say anything like that. They just say that
Resolved RFJs guide further interpretation of the Rules.

Peter C.
spoon-discuss mailing list