I am tempted to assign this to G., so that e is required to give a verdict that compiles with No Faking. Any reason why I shouldn’t do that?
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 8:22 PM Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote: > I CFJ “By sending a message at 3:35 PM Pacific on October 27, G. performed > one or more regulated actions.” > > I encourage G. to submit an argument. > > [CFJs aren’t really binding, but if G allows this to be judged false, it > would make the argument that this message did something less valid] > > Gaelan > > > On Oct 27, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote: > > > > If the quoted message contains any announcements of intent to perform a > dependent action, I object to them all. > > > > -twg > > > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > On Saturday, October 27, 2018 10:32 PM, Kerim Aydin < > ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >
