DoggleBoon posted the following: > https://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034886.html
which directly purported to be the Judgement on 3509. E listed the wrong statement, but that should not distract from a clear expression of 3509: DISMISS being delivered. Now, in the context of things like Rule Changes, mixing an ID# and a title may be disqualifyingly ambiguous. But for Judgements, as we've said, sometimes the Judge may clarify a statement to judge the actual issue at hand. So here, it reads (to me) as if e returned a valid Judgement 3509, while modifying the statement to answer a different question, which is allowed (if likely to be disputed afterwards). On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, CuddleBeam wrote: > This may help: > http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07962.html > > >On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 19:20 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote: > >> I CFJ on these statements: > >> > >> “Any player may take the office of Rulekeepor with 2 support.” [i.e. > >> I got a pink slip] > >> “o committed a cardable offense in issuing a Pink Slip to Gaelan.” > >> > >> I bar o from both CFJs. > > >These are CFJ 3508 and CFJ 3509 respectively. I assign them to > >CuddleBeam. > > 3509 is “o committed a cardable offense in issuing a Pink Slip to Gaelan.” > which is the tit for tat CFJ which I won't give Judgement on because I won't > engage in that even if clever use of the rules com > mand me to. > > 3508 was TRUE back then. Now in the current context, it FALSE. > >
