Hon Arbitor I think you missed o.'s "statute of limitations" CFJ
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk>
wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 10:55 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> > I'm dumb whoops.
> >
> > I retract any CFJs that I may have called and pay 2/20ths of the current
> > list price in Shinies (I currently own 50) and call the following CFJs
> > {{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 CFJ 3547. I assign it to omd.
>
> > ==Argument==
> >
> > The new rule creates an obligation to pay 1 ap or some amount of shinies
> to pend
> > any CFJ. While we know that a reasonable limit on how many CFJs may be
> called
> > is legal (I think?), we're not sure if stopping anyone bereft of Shinies
> or APs is legal
> > especially if APs and Shinies are also needed to do other game actions.
> > ------------------------------------
> > {{I call a CFJ on "A player that announces intent to perform an action
> without N
> > objections does not need to wait four days before performing it"}}
> This is CFJ 3548. I assign it to Murphy.
>
> > ==Argument==
> >
> > The operable text is "If the action is to be performed *With N
> Objections*, With N
> > Agoran Consent, or With Notice, if the intent was announced at least 4
> days
> > earlier."
> >
> > "With N objections" is meant to say "Without N objections" but there is
> no time
> > period enumerated for performing an action without N objections. I guess
> a time
> > period should be read in as a matter of common law (to stop people from
> ratifying
> > themselves winners instantly) but still.
>
> --
> ais523
> Arbitor
>
