Ah, it turns out this is because my email provider is being targeted by a denial-of-service attack at the moment. No problem on Agora's end this time. Frankly I'm quite impressed they're still managing to get my own messages to you.
-twg ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On June 29, 2018 4:54 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote: > > > Side note: This message (from G.) is the only one I've received in this > thread. I didn't receive Aris's, or copies of my own, although I can see them > at mail-archive.com. > > -twg > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > On June 29, 2018 4:31 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: > > > I object. > > > > (Not that I disagree with the arguments, but that's a loophole that > > > > shouldn't be supported. We should definitely add "call a CFJ" to the > > > > list of things you can't have your zombie do). > > > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > If it is possible, I act on behalf of Kenyon to publicly acknowledge that > > > today is Agora's Birthday. > > > > > > I act on behalf of Kenyon to initiate a CFJ: "At the time this CFJ was > > > initiated, Kenyon qualified for a Magenta Ribbon." > > > > > > I think it's common sense that "publicly acknowledging" something means > > > stating it in a public message, which it's not possible to do on behalf > > > of someone else, so this should be FALSE. But on the other hand, the > > > action of "publicly acknowledging" something doesn't appear to be defined > > > or referenced anywhere else in the rules, and past assumption seems to > > > have been that any action can be taken on behalf of a zombie unless it's > > > specifically prohibited, so I can see an argument for TRUE as well. > > > Anyone else have opinions? > > > > > > I favour the CFJ initiated earlier in this message and intend, without 3 > > > objections, to assign it to myself. If the aforementioned CFJ is assigned > > > to me, I intend to judge it FALSE, based on my own arguments for FALSE. > > > > > > -twg
