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
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.
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
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
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
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
6 matches
Mail list logo