Zefram wrote:
> I don't agree with your adoption of the R991 criterion, at least as
> sole criterion for determining public agreement. You can read R991 such
> that submission of a CFJ (even if the CFJ is later dismissed or refused)
> proves a lack of public agreement, but I think lack of public agreement
> can be determined in other ways also.
You are right. There are many ways to show lack of agreement. A CFJ is
one, a simple (public) request for correction might be another. However,
a good standard (for the good of the game where silence, etc.) might be:
"If there was no specific disagreement expressed during the 2034
cutoff window, it is reasonable to assume that the formal distribution
format for proposals, in combination with nearby herald reports
on players, etc., provided sufficient criterion for public agreement
on who was eligible."
Hey! That's a judicial game again, defining "reasonable" tests for
cutoff windows and evidence of disputes (and what contextual information
from other reports satisfies "sufficient" information).
-Goethe
