CFJ 32 (Michael Norrish)

Please accept a CFJ on the following statement: 

<< Alexx did not abide by rule 358 in proposal 402, using therein the
word "yielding". As his accuser, Michael must therefore gain the
penalty inflicted on Alexx for committing the crime (1 point by rules
426 and 358), in addition to a three point bonus (rule 363). >>

Blob <>

As always, by rule 364, appointed Judges have 3 days in which to
accept or decline appointment.

[Comments from Alexx:
I believe you have misread rule 363 (which I wrote).

363.  Reward Successful Accusations:
If a Player is convicted of breaking a rule, then the Player who
first formally accused him of breaking that rule shall receive back
any points which the accusing Player may have lost as a direct result
of that accusation.  In addition, he shall receive a reward of three
additional points.

That's accusing, not accused, and was included to offset the penalty
of invoking a crime under 355.  I note that it also interacts
interestingly with Proposal 467...

I do believe that Michael is entitled to the 3-point bonus specified
in 363, however.]

{ Blob withdrew from the game, and was replaced by Jason Hendricks on
16/9/93. }

{ Jason Hendricks failed to respond in due time, was penalised 10
points and was replaced by Karl Anderson on 20/9/93. }

{ Karl Anderson defaulted on 1/10/93 and was replaced by David