No—I would have barred him. Gaelan
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 5:28 PM, D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am tempted to assign this to G., so that e is required to give a verdict > that compiles with No Faking. Any reason why I shouldn’t do that? > > On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 8:22 PM Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote: > >> I CFJ “By sending a message at 3:35 PM Pacific on October 27, G. performed >> one or more regulated actions.” >> >> I encourage G. to submit an argument. >> >> [CFJs aren’t really binding, but if G allows this to be judged false, it >> would make the argument that this message did something less valid] >> >> Gaelan >> >>> On Oct 27, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote: >>> >>> If the quoted message contains any announcements of intent to perform a >> dependent action, I object to them all. >>> >>> -twg >>> >>> >>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>> On Saturday, October 27, 2018 10:32 PM, Kerim Aydin < >> ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>
