You're misconstruing what e said. E said that eir assignments _did_ give everyone a "reasonably equal" opportunity to judge. I any case, I object to the finger pointing (not that objecting does anything). I further support the intent to enter the judgment into Moot, and do so.
-Aris On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Additionally, to this finger-pointing and my finger-pointing, I add my > observation that per ais523’s own word, the assignment was not fair to the > Arbiter and therefore was a violation of Rule 991. > ---- > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > >> On Jun 29, 2017, at 9:18 AM, CuddleBeam <cuddleb...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> >2 - I disagree with your conjecture - those CFJ assignments were >> >reasonable and made the game flow better >> >> I agree with that they made the game flow better but I don't see how that >> supercedes word of law. Our laws are just a bit junk for these kind of cases >> of making the game flow better - but that doesn't remove that e has violated >> them. >> >> I support PSS's moot. (While inconvenient for the flow gameplay, I find what >> PSS has exposed to be true.) >> >> I also Point a Finger at ais523 for an infraction of "interested players >> have reasonably equal opportunities to judge". (I wouldn't agree with >> something as severe as a Pink Slip though, but I feel like there has been an >> infraction of our (unfortunately obtrusive for this case) laws) >
