root wrote:
On 6/19/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It can (if the Board of Appeals agrees) accomplish the reversal of
the judgement of CFJ 1684. Not because I disagree with its
reasonableness either, but I find the judgements of CFJs 1622 and
1623 to also be reasonable, and heavily favored by the best interests
of the game (specifically the avoidance of a really obnoxious amount
of gamestate recalculation).
1622 and 1623 should have been appealed sooner. Avoiding gamestate
recalculation may be in the interests of the players who would have to
do it, but I don't see how it has anything to do with the best
interests of the game itself. :-)
By my count, seven out of ten natural-person players are currently
members of purportedly-registered partnerships. A proposal opposing
the concept was rejected; a proposal supporting the concept was
adopted. In short, most of us seem to /want/ 1622 and 1623 to win,
and surely that counts as "best interests of the game".
If the judgement of CFJ 1684 is sustained, and registered partnerships
are retroactively invalidated (possibly allowed to register by Rule
2145), then what would happen?
* All but the most recent proposals are protected by Rule 2034
* Many judgements would be invalid and require reprocessing
(non-trivial for any that were based on the truth of 1622/1623)
* VLOPs would be higher because Human Point Two didn't win
* I would still be Speaker; OscarMeyr (I think) would still be IADoP
