Judge's arguments for CFJ 3497: I was considering playing along with this, but frankly, given everything that's happened, I'm not in the mood. Even the caller has practically admitted that this CFJ is frivolous (the message was entitled "A little levity"). The only sensible reading of the rule is that "no Player shall be prohibited" means roughly "a player shall not be prohibited". This is so abundantly clear it isn't even worth talking about (see also common sense, affixed). Further, no evidence has been provided that a player named "no player" even existed at the time of the addition of that rule. Under the precedent set by CFJ 1520, the existence of such a player would be required for the reference to be complete.
I judge this case FALSE. Additionally, for the initiation of a frivolous case, I (unofficially) sentence o to Shame. I realize we have a tradition of having such cases on occasion, but given the current judicial overload I think this is in bad taste at the moment.
