============================== CFJ 3386 ==============================
Providing an audio version of the ruleset is a reasonable way to
allow vision-impaired persons to play.
========================================================================
Caller: Roujo
Judge: Fool
Judgement: IRRELEVANT
Appeal: 3386a
Decision:
========================================================================
History:
Called by Roujo: 05 Aug 2013 13:20:04 GMT
Assigned to Fool: 05 Aug 2013 13:21:08 GMT
Judged IRRELEVANT by Fool: 05 Aug 2013 18:36:02 GMT
Appealed by scshunt: 05 Aug 2013 20:06:30 GMT
Appealed by Walker: 05 Aug 2013 20:12:00 GMT
Appealed by ehird: 05 Aug 2013 20:26:52 GMT
Appeal 3386a: 05 Aug 2013 20:28:24 GMT
========================================================================
Judge Fool's Arguments:
IRRELEVANT. There is no question of rule or fact here.
========================================================================
Appellant scshunt's Arguments:
I intend, with two support, to appeal on principle.
========================================================================
Appellant Walker's Arguments:
I support on principle.
========================================================================
Appellant ehird's Arguments:
I support.
========================================================================
Gratuitous Arguments by Machiavelli:
I don't think the word "reasonable" is clear enough to allow this CFJ to have
a reasonable judgement. Are we asking whether or not, if someone created an
audio version of the ruleset, then vision-impaired persons would reasonably be
able to play it? Or, perhaps, whether or not, if there were a requirement to
produce an audio version of the ruleset, then it would be considered a
reasonable requirement for the purpose of judging culpability?
========================================================================