Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Judicial Assignments

2007-01-31 Thread Taral 

On 1/31/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

So you agree with the argument of those CFJs, that it is impossible to
assign any current player to them.  It's a pity that Rule 1871 is written
so Pragmatically: we could have created a lovely paradox by making your
Rotations and CFJ assignments Schrodinger-illegal.


And that is *why* it's written Pragmatically. I believe we've already
had a rotation paradox.

--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
   -- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Judicial Assignments

2007-01-31 Thread Manuel Lanctot 

On 1/31/07, Ed Murphy wrote:


What about Manu?  (The web database incorrectly listed em as being
on hold.  Fixed now.)


Sshhh! Don't tell anyone!

~Manu

DIS: Re: OFF: Judicial Assignments

2007-01-31 Thread Ed Murphy 

Grey Knight wrote:


It not being possible to assign a judge for CFJ 1607, I issue a Notice
of Rotation. All turned players are now unturned.


What about Manu?  (The web database incorrectly listed em as being
on hold.  Fixed now.)


I assign CFJ 1607 to Cecilius.
I assign CFJ 1608 to Peter.
I assign CFJ 1609 to Sherlock.


Per the last paragraph of Rule 1871, and assuming good faith, these
are okay unless you feel like frobbing them.

DIS: Re: OFF: Judicial Assignments

2007-01-31 Thread Zefram 
Grey Knight wrote:
>It not being possible to assign a judge for the linked CFJ [1600-1604],
>I issue a Notice of Rotation. All turned players are now unturned.

So you agree with the argument of those CFJs, that it is impossible to
assign any current player to them.  It's a pity that Rule 1871 is written
so Pragmatically: we could have created a lovely paradox by making your
Rotations and CFJ assignments Schrodinger-illegal.

-zefram