Why don’t i just take the next two unused numbers, and use them to renumber two of the duplicates. Shouldn’t affect the judgement. Sorry all.
> On Nov 3, 2018, at 5:46 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote: > > D. Margaux wrote: >> Fair enough. This is CFJ 3678. I assign it to Murphy. > (in response to a long email chain that I won't reproduce here) > > D. Margaux wrote: >> I CFJ barring twg: “If in the last 48 hours the Speaker has objected to any >> announced intents to Demand Resignation, then Agora is not satisfied with >> those >> intents and an attempt to Demand Resignation would be INEFFECTIVE.” >> >> I CFJ barring twg: “A player CAN object more than once to a dependent action >> if >> e has not ever withdrawn an objection to that dependent action.” >> >> These are CFJs 3679 and 3680. I assign them to G. >> >> For what it’s worth, I think they are, in order, FALSE (for reasons twg gave) >> and TRUE (for reasons I gave). > > G. attempted to judge these "CFJ 3679" and "CFJ 3680" on November 2. > > > D. Margaux wrote: >>> On Oct 31, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote: >>> >>> I CFJ: "Gaelan transferred a coin to me today." >> >> This is CFJ 3678. I assign it to Murphy. >> >> >>> On Nov 1, 2018, at 5:45 PM, ATMunn <iamingodsa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I CFJ on the following statement: "VJ Rada violated No Faking in the below >>> quoted message." >> >> This is CFJ 3679. I assign it to Trigon. >> >> >>> On Nov 1, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote: >>> >>> And I CFJ (linked with the below, please): "V.J. Rada committed the crime of >>> Oathbreaking in eir below-quoted message." Might as well cover all possible >>> bases. >> >> This is CFJ 3680. I assign to Trigon. > > Trigon attempted to judge these "CFJ 3679" and "CFJ 3680" on November 3. > > I believe that all the CFJs exist, have judges, and both G.'s and Trigon's > attempts to assign judgements were EFFECTIVE (CFJ 1692-3), but it's going to > be hellish for recordkeepors to try to deal with. > > There are also two different CFJ 3678s assigned to Murphy, which I predict > will result in a sitcom-like mix-up. > > Since CFJ IDs are unregulated, we _can_ just collectively decide to start > calling the CFJs something else, but that will be confusing for later > archivists depending on what we choose. My preferred solution is to call the > first set "CFJ 3678a-3680a" and the second set "CFJ 3678b-3680b", which at > least preserves the numbers so that they can be searched on. Any other ideas? > > -twg
