On Sun, Dec 10, 2017, 19:50 Alex Smith, <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 00:17 +0000, Aris Merchant wrote: > > If this proposal is not already pending, I pend it for 1 AP. > This works as intended even without the conditional, under our current > rulings; you can't pay to pend a proposal if it's already pending. > > > If I have not already done so, I call this case for 5 shinies. > This is the one I'm most sympathetic to out of your three examples; > charging for CFJs does give a reason to not just unconditionally call > it the "potentially second time". > Another argument in favour of making CFJ calls less fundamentally conditional. > > > If Alexis has been awarded a card, I point my finger at the Referee. > This is an abuse of conditionals IMO. You're basically saying "I accuse > the Referee, if and only if e actually committed the crime". In other > words, it's an attempt to get out of being held liable for a false > accusation by making it only if it's true, and while still causing > people to do all the work required to respond to the accusation > (because they need to determine if it's true or not to determine > whether you made it). > > -- > ais523 >
