On 5/19/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. According to CFJ 1871, even incorrect arguments are not sufficient
> for a judgement to be inappropriate. The Caller argues that the
> arguments are inappropriate, but does not make the case for why the
> appeals judgement itself (e.g. Goethe's actual action in question) was
> inappropriate.
I don't have time to read the rest of this message right now (I will
later), but Rule 217 has nothing to do with (in)appropriate
judgements. I believe I've mentioned that I think the appeals
judgement was, in fact, appropriate.
Rule 217/6 (Power=3)
Interpreting the Rules
When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules
takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or
unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense,
past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the
game.
