Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
Hopefully all of this will be rendered academic by virtue of my most recent suggestion to make the intent fix retroactive. But, in any case, I respond as follows: > On Feb 17, 2019, at 9:15 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > I intend, with 2 support, to enter the judgement of this CFJ into Moot. I support this intent. I’m happy to start the moot process if/when it gets enough support. But it seems pointless, because if the moot is EFFECTIVE, then the judgement is already DISMISS. If the judgement is still PARADOXICAL, them the moot cannot go into effect until the rules are fixed. And that won’t happen for >7 days, so it won’t prevent the scam. > I intend to deputise for the Arbitor to initiate the Agoran decision to > determine public confidence in the judgement of this CFJ. I plan to execute the duties of the Arbitor in a timely manner with respect to any potential moot, so your deputisation intent should never come to fruition. But in case it does, I intend to demand resignation from twg. > I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to impeach the Arbitor. :-/ I purposefully didn’t use any of the powers of the Arbitor for this scam. Anyhow, I object.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
TTttPF -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, February 17, 2019 2:15 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > On Sunday, February 17, 2019 1:08 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I call the following CFJ: "This CFJ is FALSE." > > I intend, with 2 support, to enter the judgement of this CFJ into Moot. > > I intend to deputise for the Arbitor to initiate the Agoran decision to > determine public confidence in the judgement of this CFJ. > > I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to impeach the Arbitor. > > (no idea how many, if any, of these will stick, or work, or even be a good > idea in the first place, but I figure prompt announcements of intent keep our > options open) > > I submit the following proposal: > > // > Title: Forward Logic Preservation Act > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: twg > Co-authors: > > Amend Rule 2553, "Win by Paradox", by appending the following text > immediately after the second comma: > > and the case's initiator has not held the office of Arbitor at any > point within the last 7 days, > > and by changing the last occurrence of the phrase "the case's > initiator" to the word "e". > > // > > -twg
