On Fri, 19 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Fri, 2017-05-19 at 15:50 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: > > CFJ 3469 seems to have a typo in the statement. Is it standard that I > > should judge it as written and DISMISS it or should I judge it as > > intended. > > The main aim of CFJs is to resolve controversies. Thus, you should > typically ensure that the judgement addresses the controversy the CFJ > is about. You can then assign DISMISS as the actual judgement if the > statement is meaningless. However, DISMISSing without an attempt to > address the underlying issue is likely just to cause the CFJ to be re- > called with corrected text.
A little more specifically: You generally do something like "due to a technicality, the exact statement judgement is DISMISS, so I judge DISMISS. However, if the obvious correction were made, I would have judged [whatever] for [reasons]. Then most people will accept that [whatever] for [reasons] is what guides play, without needing a second CFJ.
