I would be happy to call a CFJ, but I am unsure of how to effectively
word it.
On 10/08/2017 08:19 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
This is what CFJs are for. If the judge can't figure it out, then it
didn't work.
-Aris
On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:18 PM VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com
<mailto:vijar...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Well hey if we can't discern the minimal change then it didn't work at
all, right?
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
<p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
<mailto:p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> This really boils down to a philosophical and logistical
discussion of what
> constitutes the minimal change.
>
>
>
> On 10/08/2017 08:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>>
>> My guess is that doesn't work because up until the date of the
ratified
>> report I was
>> Speaker and used some speaker powers. I'd say the minimal change
>> is just that the switch got flipped to Quazie magically upon
the date of
>> the report. But who knows maybe you're right.
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>>>
>>> Isn't the minimal change to the gamestate required to make Quazie
>>> speaker just not having me have appointed you speaker before now?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Kerim Aydin
<ke...@u.washington.edu <mailto:ke...@u.washington.edu>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think the conditions allowing you to appoint me exist
right now.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> My "Final Metareport" self-ratified. It is listed as being
effective
>>>>> as of October 2, 4 days after G. should have been the speaker.
>>>>>
>>>>> I appoint G. speaker.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> From V.J. Rada
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> From V.J. Rada
>>>
>
--
From V.J. Rada
