On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Alex Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
I support.
