On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Alex Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-05-09 at 15:05 -0400, omd wrote: > > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Henri Bouchard <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I CfJ: The Assessor, scshunt, failed to end the voting period for > > > proposals 7641-7642 in 7 days, thereby violating Rules 107 and 2143. > > > Scshunt has therefore committed the Class-2 Crime of Tardiness. > > > > > > I bar scshunt. > > CFJ: CFJ 3408 is assigned to omd. > > Evidence: the above-quoted message, that has the title "OFF: [Arbitor] > CFJ 3408 assigned to omd", but does not list anything but the text of > the CFJ in the body of the message. > > Arguments: I think (this is from memory, I may be wrong) we've decided > that the subject line is sufficient to assign a number to the CFJ, on > the basis that it causes general agreement as to which CFJ the number > refers to. Is it also sufficient to assign a judge? Nothing in the body > contradicts it, but nothing in the body refers to the subject either, > which is normally too low a standard to perform an action by > announcement. Evidence: k Wooble geoffspear at gmail.com 2 May 10 22 Nov 10 -scshunt
