Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3608 FALSE

2017-11-27 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: There is a possibility that I think was not addressed: that the Proposal, by virtue of being always pending, is thus also always in the Proposal Pool. But there may be an easy resolution to that so I won't support this yet. I actually considered this

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3608 FALSE

2017-11-27 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Corona wrote: I judge CFJ 3608 as FALSE, and note that proposals not in the Proposal Pool cannot have an Imminence switch. (What a headache. Hopefully that's right.) That did turn out even more complicated than I thought... thanks for judging! Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3608 FALSE

2017-11-27 Thread ATMunn
Oh wow, I didn't realize that. You had quite the matter on your hands here. On 11/27/2017 5:46 PM, Corona wrote: The Judge's Arguments are below the Caller's Arguments. On 11/27/17, VJ Rada wrote: Imminence switches are power 1, the thing that states OPs shall always be

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3608 FALSE

2017-11-27 Thread Alexis Hunt
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 17:39 VJ Rada wrote: > Imminence switches are power 1, the thing that states OPs shall always > be pending is power 1 but claims precedent over all rules to the > contrary. This judgement does not speak to that issue or indeed any > issue. I intend with

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3608 FALSE

2017-11-27 Thread VJ Rada
Oh sorry! I object to my own intent (obviously, this does nothing). On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Corona wrote: > The Judge's Arguments are below the Caller's Arguments. > > On 11/27/17, VJ Rada wrote: >> Imminence switches are power 1, the

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3608 FALSE

2017-11-27 Thread Corona
The Judge's Arguments are below the Caller's Arguments. On 11/27/17, VJ Rada wrote: > Imminence switches are power 1, the thing that states OPs shall always > be pending is power 1 but claims precedent over all rules to the > contrary. This judgement does not speak to that