Ah, <bleep> > On Jun 15, 2017, at 2:01 AM, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Nttpf > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 22:58 Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca > <mailto:o...@grimoire.ca>> wrote: > On Jun 13, 2017, at 4:38 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com > <mailto:vijar...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> I Point the Finger at Cuddlebeam. On 25 May he said "I pledge to not >> submit Judgement on CFJ 3509." >> (https://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034882.html >> >> <https://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034882.html>). >> On that very same date, he did. >> (https://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034886.html >> >> <https://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034886.html>). > > I regret my decision to object to Gaelan’s attempt at fixing this mess. > Gaelan, I’m sorry, that was shortsighted and you were right. > > [Dons Referee hat] > > I can see no message in which CuddleBeam passed judgement on CFJ 3509. The > statement to be judged in that CFJ is > >> o committed a cardable offense in issuing a Pink Slip to Gaelan. > > > In the message cited in V.J Rada’s Pointing of the Finger, CuddleBeam passes > judgement on the statement > >> Any player may take the office of Rulekeepor with 2 support. > > which is CFJ 3508, not CFJ 3509. > > CuddleBeam did, however, purport to pass judgement on CFJ 3509 (see the > Subject header of the message linked in evidence). This was unwise, but I can > find no rule that this violates, nor any evidence in the rules that claiming > to judge CFJ 3509 while actually passing judgement on a different statement > has the effect of passing judgement on CFJ 3509. > > Nonetheless, I believe that a rules violation has occurred - just not the one > that prompted V.J Rada to Point the Finger at CuddleBeam. CFJ 3509 has been > assigned to CuddleBeam for considerably more than 7 days: it was assigned on > May 23, which is, as of this writing, 23 days ago, and Rule 591 (“Delivering > Judgements”) commands that the judge SHALL assign a judgement in a timely > fashion. CuddleBeam has violated this requirement. > > A Yellow card would be appropriate, as the infraction clearly has a > “significant, but small, effect on gameplay” per Rule 2427 ("Yellow Cards"), > i.e., the CFJ has remained unjudged due to this lapse. Accordingly, I issue > CuddleBeam a Yellow Card. Eir apology, if any, must include each of the words > > * I > * Judge > * CFJ > * 3509 > * To > * Be > * TRUE > > although not necessarily in that order or in close proximity. E need not > breach eir pledge in the process of apologizing for withholding judgement. > > Arbitor, I recommend that CFJ 3509 be reassigned. > > -o >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
