G. wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Judge allispaul's Arguments: >> Importantly, a valid Notice of Violation has the >> effects it describes. CFJ 2481 and the associated cases are of note >> here: though the NoV's in question were certainly incorrect, they were >> valid and had the effect of creating Rests in the possession of >> players. > > Hmm, there's two possible ways an incorrect election notice can be VALID. > (1) It can be VALID in initiating an election, even though it's incorrect > in some specified detail; but the platonic "correct" information governed in > the rules is what really happened (e.g. its really only first-class players > who were eligible), or (2) it can be VALID and the incorrect information can > overrule the platonic state. We've tended towards (1) in general, except > when (2) involves something that has ratified; any particular reason for > favoring (2) here? The court case you mention doesn't seem to quite cover > it unless I'm misreading it. Just curious as to your thoughts because IMO > it's a bit of a (not necessarily wrong) shift. -G.
Yes, I am arguing for (1).
