I believe it dealt with partnerships - there were some odd times around that. On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 17:32 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > > In my dim memory, there was at least once where someone judging a CFJ > made em not the judge of said CFJ. > > On Fri, 19 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > >
