> > > 3614*  Assigned to o         (due Fri, 15 Dec 2017 ~23:51:00)
> > If I am assigned to this case (unclear to me):
> > I judge TRUE.  But only in a very limited sense - for example, if two
> > contracts perform a "handshake" that one contract authorizes starting
> > an auction in another contract that permits such authorization. However,
> > rules-auctions (for example) are restricted and so couldn't be so
> > authorized without the rule defining the auction explicitly permitting
> > it.
> 
> If this case remains unjudged, then I recuse o and assign it to G.

If the above sentence assigned the case to me, I judge it as quoted above.


> > > 3615*  Assigned to o         (due Fri, 15 Dec 2017 ~23:51:00)
> > If I am assigned to this case:
> > I judge this FALSE.  Zombie Auctions are the counterexample (higher
> > power overrules this clause) and there aren't other types of auctions
> > to consider.
> 
> If this case remains unjudged, then I recuse o and assign it to G.

If the above sentence assigned the case to me, I judge it as quoted above.


> > > 3616*  Assigned to Telnaior  (due Fri, 15 Dec 2017 ~23:52:39)
> > If I'm assigned to this case:
> > I judge it IRRELEVANT.  Too much work for now-gone gamestate
> > reconstruction.
> 
> If this case remains unjudged, then I recuse Telnaior and assign it
> to G.

If the above sentence assigned the case to me, I judge it as quoted above.


> > > 3618*  Assigned to ATMunn    (due Fri, 15 Dec 2017 ~23:55:35)
> > If I'm assigned to this case, I judge this case TRUE. R2034 is weird by
> > ratifying information not actually contained in the document that
> > ratifies (when adoption and taking effect are uncoupled).  Causes weird
> > effects.
> 
> If this case remains unjudged, then I recuse ATMunn and assign it to G.

If the above sentence assigned the case to me, I judge it as quoted above.



Reply via email to