Re: DIS: CFJ 3469

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Good to know, I will follow that precedent.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 19 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-05-19 at 15:50 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > wrote:
> > > CFJ 3469 seems to have a typo in the statement. Is it standard that I
> > > should judge it as written and DISMISS it or should I judge it as
> > > intended.
> >
> > The main aim of CFJs is to resolve controversies. Thus, you should
> > typically ensure that the judgement addresses the controversy the CFJ
> > is about. You can then assign DISMISS as the actual judgement if the
> > statement is meaningless. However, DISMISSing without an attempt to
> > address the underlying issue is likely just to cause the CFJ to be re-
> > called with corrected text.
>
> A little more specifically:
>
> You generally do something like "due to a technicality, the exact statement
> judgement is DISMISS, so I judge DISMISS.  However, if the obvious
> correction
> were made, I would have judged [whatever] for [reasons].
>
> Then most people will accept that [whatever] for [reasons] is what guides
> play, without needing a second CFJ.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: CFJ 3469

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-05-19 at 15:50 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
> CFJ 3469 seems to have a typo in the statement. Is it standard that I
> should judge it as written and DISMISS it or should I judge it as
> intended.

The main aim of CFJs is to resolve controversies. Thus, you should
typically ensure that the judgement addresses the controversy the CFJ
is about. You can then assign DISMISS as the actual judgement if the
statement is meaningless. However, DISMISSing without an attempt to
address the underlying issue is likely just to cause the CFJ to be re-
called with corrected text.

-- 
ais523