Good to know, I will follow that precedent. ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > >
