Hmm. If you're aiming at the loophole I think you're aiming at, the Buried Intent Prevention Act definitely closed it (if R1728 didn't already). But if not, I confess myself baffled.
Unless this is all just master-level trolling. -twg ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, October 29, 2018 1:10 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > I'll respond to this with a debate question: > > Resolved: That announcing intent to do something, in such a way > that it would satisfy R1728 requirements, is an unregulated action. > > On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, Gaelan Steele 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: > > > > > > >
