Wooble wrote: > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 8:28 PM, comex <com...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear <geoffsp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> comex violated R2158 (power 2) by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ >>> 2316 as soon as possible after e become assigned to it as Judge. >>> >>> comex violated R2158 (power 2) by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ >>> 2317 as soon as possible after e become assigned to it as Judge. >> I contest these. The accusations are probably accurate, but four >> rests is an inappropriate penalty for failing to judge CFJs. > > I initiate criminal CFJs regarding both of these NoVs. I recommend > double rests; comex is clearly GUILTY.
Gratuituous: comex didn't dispute eir guilt, only the extent to which e should be punished. This early in the NoV era, I think this counts as reasonable dispute rather than obstruction.
