On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, omd wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > While I know this NOW, I might be able to compensate in future play.
> > However, for interpreting actions made PRIOR to this investigation, any
> > interpretation favoring receipt time (rather than send time) would put me at
> > a severe and consistent disadvantage over other players in controlling the
> > timing of my public forum posts, and thus violate my R101 right of
> > participation om the fora relative to other players.
>
> Gratuitous: In CFJ 2901, one of my messages was delayed due to the
> list being down and it was reasonable for me to be unaware of this,
> but it was held that my right to participation was not violated
> because I could have determined the list was down and sent it by other
> means.
1. By the time I could have figured this out, too late, damage done.
2. At the time of 2901, it was equally down for everyone (I assume?), so
it wasn't differential participation;
3. Anyway, looking at CFJ 2901, I'm pretty sure I disagree with the judge.
