> On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:17 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote:
>
> Yes you did: (1) the power to assign a judge to a CFJ in the same message
> it's initiated; and (2) the power to personally select who judges a CFJ.
Nope. I didn’t use any Arbitor power. I used the Prime Minister’s cabinet order
of certiorari, which I obtained by getting ATMunn to fall through the trap door
in our contract, or, alternatively, by deputising this week.
If someone else were Arbitor, I could still use certiorari in the same message
and the scheme would succeed or fail just the same.
> If my attempt to announce intent for a Moot was successful - there seems to
> be some question about this? - you would also have needed to use (3) the
> power to delay a Moot for up to a week (and/or its resolution for a further
> week).
Yes, the moot may or may not succeed—regardless of how quickly it is
distributed. The whole idea behind this scheme is that intents (other than with
Notice) might be completely broken. That’s the question in CFJ 3712, assigned
to Trigon.
If intents _are_ broken, then the moot simply can’t be called by anyone until
it’s fixed (because it requires Agoran Consent).
If intents _aren’t_ broken, then the last stage of the scam, where I used
reconsideration with 2 support, already changed the verdict to DISMISS—so
there’s no need to moot.
But as I said, I’m happy to facilitate (and provide support for) any moot that
people want to try.
