> On Oct 29, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> So, why Moots are the wrong approach here.
>
> So on a first look, there's nothing in the Rules to forbid an open CFJ
> from having two judges simultaneously. R991 only allows the Arbitor
> to assign judges to cases with no judge
So, why Moots are the wrong approach here.
So on a first look, there's nothing in the Rules to forbid an open CFJ
from having two judges simultaneously. R991 only allows the Arbitor
to assign judges to cases with no judge, so that prevents multiple
judges in most situations. But the Certior
This is really adding to the uncertainty, for reasons I'll explain in a bit.
Please hold off on the Moot. Especially, don't do it with a CONDITIONAL
announcement of intent or action because that compounds the paradox.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> No autocracies please. If C
> On Oct 29, 2018, at 11:20 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote:
>> From the Arbitor’s Weekly:
>>
>>> 3672 called 15 October 2018 by D. Margaux, assigned to Trigon 20
>>> October 2018: "Trigon, twg, D. Margaux, G., and L could win the game
>>> by announcement under
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> From the Arbitor’s Weekly:
>
> > 3672 called 15 October 2018 by D. Margaux, assigned to Trigon 20
> > October 2018: "Trigon, twg, D. Margaux, G., and L could win the game
> > by announcement under rule 2580 on the Effective Date after the
> > expungement
5 matches
Mail list logo
