I retract any CFJs that are not the first one I just called, if they exist.
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 09:22 +1000, V.J Rada wrote: > > ------------------Bar-------------------- > > I bar Cuddlebeam > > ------------------Statement------------------ > > I call for judgement on this statement. "CFJ 3509 has no judgement" > > I'm interpreting these three messages as a single action, split across > three messages (rather than calling three effectively identical CFJs). > I recommend resolving the potential ambiguity by retracting any CFJs > you've created other than the one that I'm assigning here. > > This is CFJ 3526. I assign it to o. > > > -------------------Evidence-------------------- > > This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what happened > > though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be too much > > of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig > > > > On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they refused > > to judge 3509. On May 25, they judged it DISMISS. On May 25, PSS moved > for > > reconsideration. On May 25, Cuddlebeam accepted reconsideration. On June > 1, > > CB submitted a message titled "Judgement of CFJ 3509" with identical text > > to their previous Judgement in CFJ 3508. They now refuse to judge it > again, > > despite accepting reconsideration. > > -----------Argument------------ > > There are three possibilities. 1: The statement is TRUE. The DISMISS > > judgement is invalid as overridden by him agreeing to reconsider. The > later > > judgement is invalid as a judgement for a different statement. NOTE: If > the > > statement is TRUE, the CFJ has been open for over 7 days and can be > > reassigned wink wink nudge nudge put me in coach. 2: The statement is > FALSE > > because the latter judgement is valid, even if it refers to a different > > CFJ. 3: The statement is FALSE because the earlier judgement is valid. > > Cuddlebeam agreed to reconsider it, but on June 10 again refused to judge > > it. This should be taken as a refusal to reconsider. Thus, the DISMISS > > judgement is valid. > > > > GLHF! > > -- > ais523 > Arbitor >