Ed Murphy wrote: >(If either #2 or #3 is judged true, and HP3 through HP14 are players, >then by CFJ 1652 they were eligible voters on Proposals 4958-69, which >thus failed quorum. Naturally, the attempt to legislate #1 is part of >the affected batch, specifically Proposal 4964.)
I think we're close to deadlock here. We've got a problem with eligibility for CFJs, in the absence of "The Standing Court" and especially "fix judicial turns", but we need CFJs before we can firmly resolve these proposals. We urgently need some agreement on whether HPn are distinct persons, even if we can't judge a CFJ properly atm. comex, what do you make of the present CFJ situation? -zefram
