A finger-pointing should be shenanigans if it happens 14 days after the
breach. However, the way it's written, it's the final fine that's
ineffective if it's levied after 14 days (R2531). That should be
fixed I think - given that the referee has a week to respond to a
finger-pointing, e can
Also (as the person who made this paragraph because I couldn't be
assed to format bullet points), we really need to fix that massive
sentence with a bracketed list within the first clause regarding when
cards may be imposed.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:08 PM, Ned Strange
So there's actually two limitations periods. The seven-day period for
CHoJ and the fourteen-day one for overall response and Summary
Judgement. The seven-day period should probably be tolled by pending
CFJ, but I'm not sure about tolling the fortnight period. I suppose
the fortnight period should
That's not needed. The rules say punishment CAN only be imposed if a
rule is broken so the Ref can simply impose punishment and then if the
CFJ rules otherwise, the punishment never happened in the first place.
Or not, if he so chooses. The Ref is entitled to rule finger-pointing
as Shenanigans
There is a CFJ pending as to whether this is shenanigans or not.
Proto: Add to the finger-pointing rule, a third option for the
referee: Impose justice, declare shenanigans, OR CFJ/point to an
existing CFJ.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> I point my finger at G. for failing to
Actually, this feels a bit weird, but I don't see why it's unethical
so... I'll pay whoever calls it a coin for the trouble. I'd also like
to point out that AFAICT, CFJs have been literally free (as well as
unpaid) since the adoption of P8014.
Justification: The game has a legitimate interest in
The issue really calls for interpretation. I would call the CFJ myself, but
I'm far too intrested in judging it. :) I think I have some ideas for a
ruling which would clarify the issue, set out some new interesting
precedent, and generally not make anyone too grouchy. If anyone would care
to use
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > I object to every one of the below intents.
>
> I'm wondering what is needed for you to be considered to have fulfilled the
> monthly requirement and whether your objections violate it.
>
>In the
I favor the CFJ, if this gets that far.
-Aris
On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 5:56 PM Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Wait, what does “attempt” mean? Can the Registrar just say “I deregister
> each of these players by announcement”? It doesn’t work, but it’s arguably
> an intent.
>
> Gaelan
>
Wait, what does “attempt” mean? Can the Registrar just say “I deregister each
of these players by announcement”? It doesn’t work, but it’s arguably an intent.
Gaelan
> On Apr 1, 2018, at 5:42 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>> I
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I object to every one of the below intents.
I'm wondering what is needed for you to be considered to have fulfilled
the monthly requirement and whether your objections violate it.
In the first Eastman week of every month the Registrar SHALL
11 matches
Mail list logo