I vote AFFIRM On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You're misconstruing what e said. E said that eir assignments _did_ > give everyone a "reasonably equal" opportunity to judge. I any case, > I object to the finger pointing (not that objecting does anything). I > further support the intent to enter the judgment into Moot, and do so. > > -Aris > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Additionally, to this finger-pointing and my finger-pointing, I add my > observation that per ais523’s own word, the assignment was not fair to the > Arbiter and therefore was a violation of Rule 991. > > ---- > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > > > > > >> On Jun 29, 2017, at 9:18 AM, CuddleBeam <cuddleb...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> >2 - I disagree with your conjecture - those CFJ assignments were > >> >reasonable and made the game flow better > >> > >> I agree with that they made the game flow better but I don't see how > that supercedes word of law. Our laws are just a bit junk for these kind of > cases of making the game flow better - but that doesn't remove that e has > violated them. > >> > >> I support PSS's moot. (While inconvenient for the flow gameplay, I find > what PSS has exposed to be true.) > >> > >> I also Point a Finger at ais523 for an infraction of "interested > players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge". (I wouldn't agree > with something as severe as a Pink Slip though, but I feel like there has > been an infraction of our (unfortunately obtrusive for this case) laws) > > >
