Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3526 assigned to o

[V.J Rada]

I retract all unassigned CFJs I have called

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 09:49 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> > I retract any CFJs that are not the first one I just called, if they
> > exist.
>
> Oh. If there were three separate CFJs, I actually assigned the third
> one, I think (on the assumption that it would have the best
> formatting). So you'll need to retract the first one too in order to
> avoid ambiguity. (You can't retract a CFJ once it's been assigned, so
> no need to worry about accidentally destroying the one you want.)
>
> --
> ais523
>

BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3526 assigned to o

[V.J Rada]

I retract any CFJs that are not the first one I just called, if they exist.

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 09:22 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> > --Bar
> > I bar Cuddlebeam
> > --Statement--
> > I call for judgement on this statement. "CFJ 3509 has no judgement"
>
> I'm interpreting these three messages as a single action, split across
> three messages (rather than calling three effectively identical CFJs).
> I recommend resolving the potential ambiguity by retracting any CFJs
> you've created other than the one that I'm assigning here.
>
> This is CFJ 3526. I assign it to o.
>
> > ---Evidence
> > This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what happened
> > though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be too much
> > of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig
> >
> > On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they refused
> > to judge 3509. On May 25, they judged it DISMISS. On May 25, PSS moved
> for
> > reconsideration. On May 25, Cuddlebeam accepted reconsideration. On June
> 1,
> > CB submitted a message titled "Judgement of CFJ 3509" with identical text
> > to their previous Judgement in CFJ 3508. They now refuse to judge it
> again,
> > despite accepting reconsideration.
> > ---Argument
> > There are three possibilities. 1: The statement is TRUE. The DISMISS
> > judgement is invalid as overridden by him agreeing to reconsider. The
> later
> > judgement is invalid as a judgement for a different statement. NOTE: If
> the
> > statement is TRUE, the CFJ has been open for over 7 days and can be
> > reassigned wink wink nudge nudge put me in coach. 2: The statement is
> FALSE
> > because the latter judgement is valid, even if it refers to a different
> > CFJ. 3: The statement is FALSE because the earlier judgement is valid.
> > Cuddlebeam agreed to reconsider it, but on June 10 again refused to judge
> > it. This should be taken as a refusal to reconsider. Thus, the DISMISS
> > judgement is valid.
> >
> > GLHF!
>
> --
> ais523
> Arbitor
>