@Gaelan: I have expressed a desire to not be referred to by my real name. While there is nothing in the rules that prevents you from doing so, I shall glare at you menacingly for ignore my wishes.
I have gotten the mailing list to accept 天火狐 as my name as of this message, and if everything goes well it should use that for the name field of the email than pulling directly from gmail, hopefully. 天火狐 On 25 May 2017 at 13:20, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote: > This could probably go do DIS, but I’m sending it to BUS just in case. > > I would like CFJ’s that focus more on interpreting the rules than abstract > philosophy. Examples: > > - Josh’s ambiguity CFJ - no > - My pink slip CFJ - yes > - That “no Player” CFJ - yes. It is not relevant to current gameplay, > but it is still a simple reading of the rules and examination of precedent > > On May 25, 2017, at 7:48 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 14:45 +0000, Quazie wrote: > > Is it reasonable to request to you not be eligible for certain > judicial subsets? > > Could I ask to be ineligible for CFJs about Card based actions for > example? > - not that I want this, just asking about the concept. > > > I think that's a reasonable request. Judging some CFJs gives more judge > variety than judging none at all. > > There do need to be limits in case of abuses (e.g. asking only to judge > about scams by a particular coconspirator), but that can be partially > dealt with by barring, and that sort of bad faith request would be > fairly obvious and thus ignorable. > > -- > ais523 > > >
