Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2670a

============================  Appeal 2670a  ============================

History:

Appeal initiated:                       28 Aug 2009 21:50:46 GMT

========================================================================

Appellant ais523's Arguments:

I intend, with 2 support, to appeal CFJ 2670. The judge seems to think
that an inclarity as to whether there is an inclarity is a sufficient
inclarity to allow R217 to interfere over the overwhelmingly likely
most-obvious interpretation of the rule (even if the wording of the rule
in question was created by mistake); and game custom is that the rule,
as written, prevents non-With Notice dependent actions. R217 has many
parts; the judge seems to only have considered one of them.

========================================================================