Oh I see. If anything it’s the opposite—there’s a theory under which you
three might win, and not me and G.
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 3:36 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I meant the way there are separate CFJs ruling on "Trigon, twg, D.
> Margaux, G., and L" and "Trigon, twg, and L". It feels like y
I meant the way there are separate CFJs ruling on "Trigon, twg, D. Margaux, G.,
and L" and "Trigon, twg, and L". It feels like you're going to pull out some
sort of technicality that means only you and G. won. :P (I do realise they are
semantically different too, I just found it amusing)
-twg
No scam in this one. This was the culmination of the discussion thread
about what CFJs were needed after the Round Robin confusion. I suggested
one judge because the issues are very intermingled. (Can’t be me because I
called the CFJs.)
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 5:10 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
Hmm. For some reason this feels like a build-up to a scam. Oh well, let's see
what happens.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, October 15, 2018 7:24 PM, D Margaux wrote:
> I CFJ the following three statements, and suggest to the Arbitor that they
> should probably be assigned t
4 matches
Mail list logo
