E could recuse, find it INSUFFICENT, publish a disclaimer with the ruling, or probably get out of it in several other ways that I haven’t thought of.
-Aris On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 5:29 PM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
