3218 is an inquiry case; NOT GUILTY is not a valid judgement for it. On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@bham.ac.uk> wrote: > I judge CFJs 3217 and 3218 NOT GUILTY. I can't find anything in rule > 2365, nor in rule 2362, nor in rule 2354 (which uses "condition"), that > would imply that there's anything illegal involved in not paying a > proposal promotion cost. The only sensible reading of rule 2365 is that > attempts to add excess proposals to the Pool without paying the cost > (explicitly paying the cost, per rule 2354) simply fail. If another rule > contradicts this, then it doesn't cause rule 2365 to suddenly start > imposing criminal obligations; it just causes its attempt to impose > platonic requirements to fail. > > -- > ais523
