On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Charles Walker wrote: > On 11 April 2011 21:30, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Charles Walker wrote: > >> I think that this is FALSE, FALSE and TRUE respectively. > > > > Pretty standard interpretation; any reason this *wouldn't* be > > the case? -G. > > Well, this is Agora. Someone was bound to wait until there was a > Scorekeepor report and then CFJ it, so I thought I'd get in there > first.
Sure, no harm in defensive recordkeeping. For a statement like this when there's a pretty strong direction, a single CFJ "Walker has 0 points, Wooble has 0 points, and omd has more than 0 points" would usually do. If a judge finds FALSE, e can put the false part in the arguments, and we're pretty good at letting that stand as precedent without needing to re-call for every permutation. -G.
