shadowfirebird on Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:11:29 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] RFJ 0008 judgement

> Could be even worse: on at least one occasion, a CFI was judged TRUE
> because the player who stood to benefit from the CFI's truth offered
> bribes to two of three Judges.

Nothing wrong with that, of course, unless the rules say otherwise.

> But this is why RFJs "guide further
> interpretation" instead of being absolute law - there's no reason why
> the RFJ can't be reversed later.

Hmm.  Whoever is judging RFJ #2 please take note.

But you are saying that this word "guide" is a bit of a loophole?
That a judgement in fact does not have any effect, or that the effect
is not properly defined?  I find that a little worrying.

Don't tell me what the poets are doing
Don't tell me that they're talking tough
Don't tell me that they're antisocial
Somehow not antisocial enough...
spoon-discuss mailing list