Now that I reread it again I see why you got that idea, I should have been more clear. Your interpretation is definitely funnier.
---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry this is on me I think. You're saying G. must [do the thing described > in the CFJ], not [do the thing you just did]. I misread. > > On 05/19/2017 06:39 PM, Nic Evans wrote: > > I think you're saying the G. is still the judge for this? If true, you're > not the judge as nobody could've made you the judge if one was already > assigned. Also, nothing comepls em to issue the same judgement as you. > On 05/19/2017 06:29 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > I judge CFJ 3488 TRUE. Further, the person known as G. must do so in "do > so in a timely fashion after this becomes possible," per Rule 591. I find > this because the judgement was assigned to G. under Rule 991 when he was a > player. Finally, no rule caused G. to lose his status as judge and Rule 591 > only states that the judge must issue a judgement with no limitation on who > that judge may be. > > ---- > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > >
