On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 10:24 +1000, V.J Rada wrote: > I hope these are remotely meritorious. I remember some controversy about > whether the overhaul rule violated 217, I don't agree that it does but I wish > to > put it to rest. > > I call a CFJ on "The rule change purporting to enact a rule entitled Economics > Overhaul 2.0 is "wholly void and without effect" under rule 217, which > prohibits any > rule that would "prevent a person from initiating a formal process to resolve > matters > of controversy, in the reasonable expectation that the controversy will > thereby be > resolved"
This is basically equivalent to CFJing on "This is a CFJ", because you didn't pay to file it. As such, it's unclear whether I can assign it or not. Perhaps you or someone else should file a CFJ that's unambiguously a CFJ, to determine whether this one exists? However, if we did so, the original CFJ would be useless. -- ais523
