As Arbitor, I have a general policy of filtering out "the most self-interested" parties from judge assignments whenever possible, so I would not (even if I hadn't favored it) be prone to grant this one? Happy to discuss.
On 5/31/2021 3:28 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > I favor them as well. > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 12:25 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> >> I favor these CFJs (though lmk if anyone else is really gung-ho to judge >> them No strong opinions yet - gratuitous arguments welcome.) >> >> On 5/28/2021 5:26 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: >>> On 5/27/2021 1:03 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: >>>> I create the following contract named "Cuddlebeam's Sandwich": >>>> >>>> ---------- >>>> Cuddlebeam is the sole party to this contract. >>>> >>>> Layer 1: This is a layer of bread. >>>> Layer 2: This is a layer of ham. >>>> Layer 3: This is a layer of bread. >>>> Layer 4: This is a layer of ham. >>>> ---------- >>>> >>>> I consent to modify the above contract by adding layers for all natural >>>> numbers, alternating bread and ham, following this example: >>>> >>>> Layer 1: This is a layer of bread. >>>> Layer 2: This is a layer of ham. >>>> Layer 3: This is a layer of bread. >>>> Layer 4: This is a layer of ham. >>>> Layer 5: This is a layer of bread. >>>> Layer 6: This is a layer of ham. >>>> etc. >>>> >>>> Note that I just need to *consent* to a modification, not spell it out >>>> entirely. >>>> >>> >>> I CFJ on the following statement: The above amendment to "Cuddlebeam's >>> Sandwich" was successful. >>> >>> I CFJ on the following statement: The contract "Cuddlebeam's Sandwich" >>> has finite length. >>> >>> I request that these two CFJs be linked. >>> >>
