It is two distinct CFJs. I see no harm in assigning them. The gist is that the message if run through a translator states that responding grants consent to CuddleBeam to take actions, but omd just responded and I responded attempting to explicitly not give consent. I believe either neither of us consented as the message was ineffective, both of us connected because my message was ineffective, or omd consented because he did not not consent. I lean towards the first interpretation as one should not be bound by that which they do not understand, but I could understand an argument for the final. ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 24, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 09:14 -0700, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: >> I do not consent to any actions allowed by this message. Further, I >> invoke judgement on the statement: “CuddleBeam received consent from >> omd by eir response to the below quoted message.” >> CFJ: “CuddleBeam received consent from Publius Scribonius >> Scholasticus by this response to the below quoted message/" >> >>> On Jun 29, 2017, at 9:00 AM, CuddleBeam <cuddleb...@googlemail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> ဤသတင်းစကားကိုတစ်ဦးမိမိဆန္ဒအလျောက်ကိုအီးမေးလ်အကြောင်းပြန်ပေးသူတွေကိ >>> ုအတိအလင်းဒီမက်ဆေ့ခ်ျ၏ဖန်ဆင်းရှင်အလိုတော်မဆိုလမ်းအတွက်အာမခံဖို့သူတို >>> ့ကိုချည်နှောင်ဖို့ဒီသတင်းစကားများ၏ပေးပို့သူဘို့မိမိတို့ခွင့်ပြုချက် >>> ပေးရန်သူတွေကိုဖွဲ့စည်းကြမည်။ > > Did I miss assigning this CFJ the first time around? If so, I can > assign it now (assuming it's still relevant). Also, is it one or two > CFJs? > > -- > ais523 > attempting to be the Arbitor but isn't very good at it
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
