> On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:31 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote:
>
> I'm not clear how your win attempt relies on it though. I understand that
> you've arranged matters so that you only win* if intents are broken (because
> otherwise the CFJ is eventually judged DISMISS), but not _why_ you've done
> that. If you judged it PARADOXICAL again instead of DISMISS it would be
> protected from motions to reconsider (either because these can only be done
> once per CFJ, or because intents were broken) and from Moots (either via
> Arbitor delays, or because intents were broken), leaving you with an
> unpreventable win*. Also, since that works whether or not intents are broken,
> you could have done this any time you liked, surely? As that would make the
> mousetrap contract the only truly necessary component.
I think you’re right about this, but it relies on my abusing the office of
Arbitor, and I’ve learned my lesson in that respect. My scam (would have)
worked even if I act faithfully as Arbitor. But I messed it up.
