On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 00:04 -0500, Pavitra wrote: > ais523 wrote: > > I call for judgement on the statement "I favoured a CFJ by Murphy with > > the statement 'It is legal to announce that CFJ 2670 was appealed.'". I > > favour the CFJ that's the subject of that CFJ (to remove ambiguity). > > > > Arguments: > > If a public forum is permanently down, is it possible to send a message > > via it? > > Arguments: > > I'd like to reexamine the precedent that messages sent via a 'down' > forum occur when sent to the list, particularly if the sender is aware > that the forum is down. The timing of slow-sent messages, like the > validity of obfuscated ones, should be partly based on the sender's > intent. Deliberate latency is a Bad Thing. > > Don't make me do a proof of concept. > Actually, based on the recent outage, I was looking at the precedent (CFJ 2058) again, and as far as I can tell the judge's verdict contradicts eir arguments. Therefore, another precedent on the matter would likely be very welcome.
-- ais523
