comex wrote: >I CFJ on the following: A worthwhile CFJ from comex. With cogent arguments, even. Will wonders never cease?
>While it seems that the CotC is indirectly required to perform that action >(else he can't assign any judges, which he is required to do), This is slightly wrong. The CotC *can* assign sitting judges, e is merely forbidden to do so. Your general train of thought about indirect obligations is sound. The closest thing we've got to a precedent here is CFJ 1488, which argues against the concept of indirect obligations. -zefram
