Re: DIS: Re: BUS: There really, really, is nothing to see here this time
D. Margaux wrote: Fair enough. This is CFJ 3678. I assign it to Murphy. 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.” ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, October 27, 2018 10:32 PM, Kerim Aydin < ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: Interpreting the somewhat informal date/time spec as "on or about 3:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time (-0700) on October 27, 2018" (presumably caller's intent, and if not then e can submit another): The only public message from G. that meets this spec is the one quoted by the caller (archive link in evidence). To the best of my knowledge, it was genuinely an empty message (unregulated), and neither that message nor any non-public message e may have sent around the same time triggered any non-obvious recordkeeping duties or the like. As usual, if evidence to the contrary later emerges (e.g. a relevant encrypted contract is revealed), then this judgement should be appealed accordingly. FALSE. Evidence: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039429.html
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: There really, really, is nothing to see here this time
Hmm. If you're aiming at the loophole I think you're aiming at, the Buried Intent Prevention Act definitely closed it (if R1728 didn't already). But if not, I confess myself baffled. Unless this is all just master-level trolling. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, October 29, 2018 1:10 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > 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 m...@timon.red 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
Fair enough. This is CFJ 3678. I assign it to Murphy. On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 8:31 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
