On Sun, 2017-12-10 at 20:17 -0500, ATMunn wrote: > On 12/10/2017 8:12 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 01:07 +0000, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > Another argument in favour of making CFJ calls less fundamentally > > > conditional. > > > > Perhaps we should pragmatise CFJs? If you call them, they always go > > through unless explicitly refused by the Arbitor for not having > > payment. > > > > This would allow "public interest" CFJs to be called for free, too, > > so long as the Arbitor was on board. > What if the Arbitor just refused all CFJs? Or none of them?
They wouldn't be able to refuse a case that had been paid for correctly. -- ais523
