On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:23 AM, comex <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Alex Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 Support. CFJ 2471 is >>> trivially true, as I am currently a player and it is after I sent that >>> message. I believe I didn't CFJ on what I wanted to. >> >> I interpreted "after" as "due to", but I should be more alert really, I >> missed that interpretation. > > N.B. whether Quazie is a player now is irrelevant, but e unambiguously > became a player before submitting eir CFJs.
When I became a player is relevant, and what constitutes a valid registration is relevant.
