====================================================================== CFJ 1144 Vlad wrote: ". . . the changes to the scoring report I announced went into effect June 1." ====================================================================== Called by: Lee Judge: Chuck Judgement: TRUE Judge selection: Eligible: Chuck, Crito, elJefe, Elysion, harvel, Kolja, Michael, Morendil, Murphy, Peekee, Vlad, Wes Not eligible: Caller: Lee Barred: - Had their turn: Beefurabi, Blob Already served: - Defaulted: - By request: - On Hold: Oerjan, Steve ====================================================================== History: Called by Lee: 29 Jun 1999 13:54:32 -0700 Assigned to Chuck: 02 Jul 1999 08:53:46 -0700 Judged TRUE by Chuck: 07 Jul 1999 00:15:07 -0500 Judgement Distributed: As of this message ===================================================================== Caller's Arguments: ====================================================================== Evidence attached by the Caller: ====================================================================== Judge's Arguments: I Judge this statement to be trivially TRUE, as others have pointed out. A preponderance of the evidence (namely, the Judge's own records) indicate that Vlad wrote the statement in quotes. As for the question that was meant to be asked--although this has no legal significance to that question--I believe that the changes Vlad references did not go into effect on June 1, although they may have done so at a later time. Vlad attempts to make this change without 3 objections--however, R1728 specifies for WO actions, If the action to be performed is the change of some property under that Player's control, the change may not take place until the Player announces that e is making that change. The message including Vlad's Scorekeepor's report, in which this change was announced (although I have not searched diligently for earlier messages which might have announced such a change) indicates that it reached the PF at the time in this header: >Received: from umc-mail01.missouri.edu(128.206.10.216) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au vi >a smap (V2.1) > id xma015656; Sat, 5 Jun 99 02:41:34 +1000 Thus, such a change could not have taken place earlier than this time, unless there is an earlier message announcing the change of which I am not aware. Aside, as a thought on this sort of CFJ, where the question addresses is not the one the caller intended to be addresssed: Perhaps Judges could, with the consent of the caller, change the statement of a CFJ? ======================================================================