On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Pavitra wrote: > On 12/21/2011 11:30 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, Pavitra wrote: > >> On 12/20/2011 04:22 PM, John Smith wrote: > >>>> This message is a Delve, satisfying the Goals 2205 and 2338. > >>> > >>> The only Delve was cashing a promise, which relied critically on > >>> 2338. You could have submitted the same judicial arguments even if > >>> Rule 2205 did not exist. > >> > >> I could have published the same text, but it is not obvious to me that > >> the text would have been judicial arguments in any rule-defined sense > >> without 2205. > >> > >>> (Note that the CfJ's judgment is not a part Delve since it cites > >>> neither rule in its Judge's Arguments; they were clearly cited after > >>> the end of the arguments.) > >> > >> The Delve is the entire series of moves taken in the message in question. > > > > The Delving Period ended a while ago (November). Something is only a Delve > > if it was submitted during the Delving Period. > > Oh, right. Oh well.
Looks like the promise was created a while ago so it would be a real stretch to say a part of the attempt happened during the delving period. oh, well. I'm thinking of making it a month for next round. Just seems to take a while to set up clever linked things (and that's about my speed, too). -G.
