I'm don't even think it's assigned to Quazie. ais523 assigned it to Sprocklem. Then e assigned a different case the same number and assigned it to Quazie. The case log is in error on the judge identity due to this second assignment.
Quazie judged the second case. But I think the first one might be still assigned to Sprocklem and has fallen through the cracks - at least, I can't find differently (though I might be missing something!) On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > You can always judge it w/ QAZ. I was about to say I could but of > course I cannot. > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: > >> > R869 has "A person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or prevented by the > >> > rules) > >> > register by publishing a message that indicates reasonably clearly and > >> > reasonably > >> > unambiguously that e intends to become a player at that time." > >> > >> counter: > >> > >> IF you can't flip a switch to the same value that it already has, and have > >> it > >> count as "flipping the switch" (recent CFJ question), and IF "registering" > >> is > >> a synonym for "flipping the Citizenship switch to registered", THEN you are > >> "prevented by the rules" from registering due to the fact that you are > >> already > >> in the registered state. > > > > *sigh* > > > > The recent CFJ referred to up there is this one, which apparently still > > hasn't been judged: > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3529 > > > > It is, in fact, the exact same situation as CuddleBeam's current one. > > > > (note, confusion exists because a later case was assigned the same number > > and judged under that number, but I don't think the original listed in the > > case log above was ever judged). > > > > > > > > -- > From V.J Rada >
