========================= Criminal Case 2402 =========================
Taral violated R2234, a power-2 rule, by not awarding me points as
soon as possible after the end of February for completing the
contestmaster duties for the AAA.
Decision: OVERRULE/NOT GUILTY
Called by Wooble: 09 Mar 2009 11:46:56 GMT
Defendant Taral informed: 09 Mar 2009 11:46:56 GMT
Assigned to ehird: 10 Mar 2009 20:50:31 GMT
Judged GUILTY/SILENCE by ehird: 10 Mar 2009 21:42:31 GMT
Appealed by ehird: 10 Mar 2009 23:10:25 GMT
Appealed by ais523: 10 Mar 2009 23:40:12 GMT
Appealed by G.: 11 Mar 2009 04:23:19 GMT
Appeal 2402a: 11 Mar 2009 04:23:19 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal: 19 Mar 2009 22:03:38 GMT
Assigned to ehird: 19 Mar 2009 22:03:38 GMT
Judged GUILTY/SILENCE by ehird: 23 Mar 2009 19:52:40 GMT
Appealed by Taral: 24 Mar 2009 04:53:26 GMT
Appeal 2402b: 24 Mar 2009 04:53:26 GMT
OVERRULED to NOT GUILTY on Appeal: 28 Mar 2009 19:42:16 GMT
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Taral wrote:
>> The AAA is no longer a contest. The reading of the rule is a bit
>> strange here, but I'm going to say Wooble doesn't care. No points.
I contest this NoV. Taral has accurately assessed the situation.
The timing is
relevant because I was the contestmaster and the AAA was a contest up
until after the deadline for awarding such points.
Judge ehird's Arguments:
Trivially GUILTY, as far as I can tell. SILENCE.
Appellant ehird's Arguments:
I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgment. Obviously, the
AAA isn't a contest, and the rule enumerates contests, so this is
Appellant ais523's Arguments:
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 19:37 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Elliott Hird
> > 2009/3/10 Ed Murphy :
> >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2402
> >> ========================= Criminal Case 2402 =========================
> >> Taral violated R2234, a power-2 rule, by not awarding me points
> >> as soon as possible after the end of February for completing the
> >> contestmaster duties for the AAA.
> >> ========================================================================
> > I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgment. Obviously, the
> > AAA isn't a contest, and the rule enumerates contests, so this is
> > incorrect. Oops.
> For the love of god, did you actually read the arguments surrounding that
They weren't nearly as heated as the arguments surrounding the /other/
Scorekeepor "discretion" case. But yes, there's a lot of timing problems
involved here, that need a second look. I support.
Judge ehird's Arguments:
GUILTY/SILENCE; when the obligation was created, the AAA was a
contest, and obligations don't automagically stop existing because
they wouldn't if they were calculated now.
Appellant Taral's Arguments:
I appeal the judgement of GUILTY in CFJ 2402. Given that it took an
inquiry CFJ to figure this out, I believe I am NOT GUILTY by:
(d) the Accused could not have reasonably believed that the
alleged act did not violate the specified rule;