============================== 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? ========================================================================