DIS: Re: BUS: There really, really, is nothing to see here this time
I'll respond to this with a debate question: Resolved: That announcing intent to do something, in such a way that it would satisfy R1728 requirements, is an unregulated action. On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, Gaelan Steele 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 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 > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: There really, really, is nothing to see here this time
No—I would have barred him. Gaelan > On Oct 27, 2018, at 5:28 PM, D. Margaux 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 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 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: >>> >>> >>> >> >>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: There really, really, is nothing to see here this time
E could recuse, find it INSUFFICENT, publish a disclaimer with the ruling, or probably get out of it in several other ways that I haven’t thought of. -Aris On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 5:29 PM D. Margaux 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 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 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: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: There really, really, is nothing to see here this time
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 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 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: > > > >> > > > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: There really, really, is nothing to see here this time
Huh. Nothing of interest in headers that I could see, and no unicode anywhere in the message. If this is hiding something, it’s doing a damn good job. Maybe it’s a test for a timing scam? I’m intrigued, yet worried. Gaelan > On Oct 27, 2018, at 3:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >
