On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 22:04, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Pledge: If CFJ 3780 is judged false and therefore CFJ 3781 isn't a
> CFJ, I will assign any CFJ covering 3781's disputed matter to the
> "judge" of CFJ 3781, if at all possible.
I think you meant CFJ 3779. I guess it all works out in the end.
-
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 18:51, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 10:14 AM James Cook wrote:
> > If we parse the rule text as "unambiguously and clearly (specifying
> > the action and announcing that e performs it)", then I don't think
> > this counts as "unambiguous" so it didn't work
On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 10:14 AM James Cook wrote:
> If we parse the rule text as "unambiguously and clearly (specifying
> the action and announcing that e performs it)", then I don't think
> this counts as "unambiguous" so it didn't work. If we parse it as
> "(unambiguously and clearly specifying
On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 at 17:16, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The below CFJ is 3782. I assign it to Falsifian.
Here are preliminary thoughts on CFJs 3780 and 3782. Comments welcome,
especially precedent.
R478 says performing a by-announcement action requires "unambiguously
and clearly specifying the action
4 matches
Mail list logo
