On 4/25/2020 8:19 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 3:55 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> R2478 says that the investigator CAN "conclude" the investigation by >> calling shenanigans. I'd argue that the common definition of "conclude" >> (supported by an ethical/good of the game desire to avoid double jeopardy) >> means you can't conclude the same thing twice. >> >> I think it's clear that if someone else points their finger, starting a > different investigation, that would be separately resolvable? I can't open > the rules at the moment, so it's possible that there's an obvious bar I'm > missing. >
There's no bar to that - I just didn't personally feel like raising the issue in CFJ or asking a hypothetical, when the referee had opined within the bounds of reason, and the standard for shenanigans is what the referee "believed" was true (If it was a different standard I might have CFJ'd). Oh, I may see the confusion - I said initially there was "no way" to CFJ the referee's finding, when what I really meant was something like there was "no valid legal reason" (the finding having met the proper standard of belief and all). -G.
