Here is my judgement on CFJs 3665 and 3666. Hopefully my logic makes
sense and works. If not, though, I am open to changing my judgement. It
might be smart for me to put up some sort of proto-judgement first, but
it's too late now. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
CFJ 3665 AND CFJ 3666
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:39 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> I CFJ barring G. the statement: “G. violated Rule 2471 (No Faking) when e
> published a message that stated, ‘Oh for crying out loud. I object to
> everything. To everything, literally. I object.’”
>
> I plan to randomly assign the CFJ probably
I judge CFJ 3667 as follows:
The announcement of intent is buried in quotes, but not in quotes.
We generally allow that sort of thing (actions with quotes on either
side) so it's not really less clear than other intents that have been
found to be successful lately. TRUE.
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018,
I disagree in several respects.
First, I disagree with the sentence "It seems logical that the
contract does indeed exist, as a contract is simply an agreement;
however, it has no binding power." I request a rule citation for this
highly confusing claim. Rule 1742 explicitly states that _all_
