I AP-CFJ, on behalf of VJ Rada, "Rule 2507 does not exist." This is because its enactment was INEFFECTIVE, per paragraph 3 clause 1 of Rule 217.
On 11/27/2017 10:23 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > Would like someone to make a challenge on that basis, won't myself bc of > uncertainty. > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:23 PM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> It's not just can't register, it's CAN'T TAKE ANY GAME ACTIONS. >> >> Actually, now that I Think of it, it's probably null and void bc of the >> "stopping someone from formally resolving a controversy" clause. >> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: >>>> Actually, G, if the CFJ is TRUE, it's not a CFJ because I can't take >>> game >>>> actions. So by judging this CFJ you've implicitly recognized that I can >>>> indeed take game actions. >>> 1. If you're not a player, does the fact that you claimed to use AP to >>> call it invalidate your non-player ability to call it by announcement? >>> >>> 2. I've already self-filed a Motion to Reconsider and will wait for ATMunn >>> on the actual opinion. >>> >>> 3. We never used to have separate mechanisms at all for non-player >>> versus player CFJs. This is the first time it's caused an issue so far, >>> but it could happen again with economic trade. Depending on what sort >>> of issues this causes this is another argument for making CFJs free for >>> everyone again (removing them from the economy). >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada >> > > -- ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
