On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 13:18 +0100, Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 01:05 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > On Jul 30, 2017, at 3:06 PM, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies. > > > > > > * Resolving an Agoran Decision for the first time this week: 5 > > > shinies. > > > > CFJ: When nichdel resolved proposal 7867, he neither published a > > duty-fulfilling report nor resolved an Agoran Decision, for the > > purposes of the rule “Rewards.” > > This is CFJ 3549 and was paid for (in a subsequent message) using AP. > I assign it to myself. > > > Caller’s arguments: > > > > Resolving proposal 7867 occurred before the rule was enacted, and > > therefore is not governed by the rules changes in that proposal. > > > > (This is more of a sanity-check CFJ than anything. I don’t care > > _what_ the outcome is, only that we all agree on which outcome > > should apply.)
I renumber this CFJ 3554 (it was a duplicate number), and judge it TRUE. "Meeting a Reward Condition" is something that happens actively, at a particular point in time. You can't meet a Reward Condition that doesn't exist, so the condition can only be met if it exists at the time. This means that you can't claim a reward for something that's now rewardable, if it wasn't rewardable when it happened, even if it happened in the last 24 hours. -- ais523
