On Fri, 2013-07-26 at 23:34 +0200, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote: > > > Finally, CFJ 866 seems to be relevant background reading too (and also > > supports this verdict), and may be responsible for the TDoC confusion > > (in that it holds that the /recipient's/ TDoC is what matters, not > > the /sender's/ TDoC). > > FWIW IMO as the original Judge, CFJ 866 holds that it is the recipient's > TDoC that matters for when a message is _received_. Whether Agora chooses > to let a message take effect when sent or when received is a different > matter, which may have changed during the years - I vaguely think that at > the time votes may have been defined to take effect when _received_ by the > Assessor. Also note that at the time voting was allowed to be in private, > thus public fora were not involved.
"received" is what the recent precedents indicate. (The rules require the message to be "sent via" a public forum, rule 478, and it hasn't gone via the forum until both the sender has sent it, and the recipient has received it. Also I can't construct a circumstance where those events happen out of order.) -- ais523
