I think maybe there is some confusion about how this scheme is meant to operate. Hopefully this clarifies it:
The idea here isn’t to abuse the Arbitor’s power to call or assess votes in moots. The idea is to take advantage of the fact that intents might be broken, so it might be _impossible_ to seek group-filed reconsideration or call a moot until intents are fixed by proposal. Indeed, the easy way to counter the scam (if intents _aren’t_ broken) is simply to file a group motion for reconsideration on Saturday, which would break up the 7 days, while also pursuing a moot. Which I’m happy to facilitate as best I can. But that’s basically unnecessary because (1) if it’s possible, then I already achieved that outcome in the original scam message by group-filing reconsideration and assigning the CFJ a judgement of DISMISS; and (2) if it’s impossible, then the scam can’t be countered except by proposal and the judgement will stay PARADOXICAL until a proposal passes to fix intents. Anyhow, I don’t really expect this PARADOXICAL win (if it becomes a win) to be permanent. Either Trigon will decide that intents aren’t broken (in which case, the PARADOXICAL verdict was already changed to DISMISS), or we will need to fix it by proposal, which I think _should_ include a provision to change the gamestate to what it would have been if intents had been fixed all along (so that the PARADOXICAL judgement would go away too). Hope that all makes sense. On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:34 PM, D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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.
