On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 17:04 -0400, comex wrote:
> I intend to appeal this with 2 support, recommending REMAND. CFJ 1780
> contradicts this paragraph; ais523 has indicated privately to me that
> e disagrees with that judgement, but e should at least mention it in
> eir own judgement if e's going to go against it. Also, Rule 106
> reads:
>
> A player CAN create a proposal by publishing ("submitting") a
> body of text with a clear indication that it is intended to
> become a proposal, which places the proposal in the Proposal
> Pool.
>
> ais523 misquoted the rule. While an incorrectly distributed proposal
> clearly is intended to *be* a proposal, there is certainly no
> indication that it is to *become* a proposal (implying that it
> previously wasn't one).
Err, whoops. I support. (I had to rush the judgement anyway, time was
almost up...) But aren't you appealing the hypothetical reasoning at the
end, rather than the actual judgement? Maybe calling a new CFJ would be
better...
--
ais523
