DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3827
On 4/8/2020 12:05 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > R591 contains some guidance for what CAN and SHOULD be done following such > a judgement (though I don't know what that stray CAN is for wholly > unneeded for submitting a new case - maybe it allows a resubmitted case to > have the same number, I don't know). > One reason I did this is I *am* truly interested in that R591 CAN. The rule text is: > A CFJ judged as INSUFFICIENT CAN and SHOULD be >submitted again with sufficient arguments/evidence. This is different than saying the CFJ *statement* SHOULD be resubmitted. If it said that, submitting the statement would create a new CFJ via R991 and the CAN would be unneeded. However, the text implies that the CFJ itself (along with all its history, properties, etc?) CAN be "submitted again". Is that something different? Maybe common sense will say no, it just means make a new CFJ by submitting the statement again (with more arguments), but I'm kinda curious. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3827
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 15:28, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 4/8/2020 12:05 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > > R591 contains some guidance for what CAN and SHOULD be done following > such > > a judgement (though I don't know what that stray CAN is for wholly > > unneeded for submitting a new case - maybe it allows a resubmitted case > to > > have the same number, I don't know). > > > > One reason I did this is I *am* truly interested in that R591 CAN. The > rule text is: > > > A CFJ judged as INSUFFICIENT CAN and SHOULD be > >submitted again with sufficient arguments/evidence. > > This is different than saying the CFJ *statement* SHOULD be resubmitted. > If it said that, submitting the statement would create a new CFJ via R991 > and the CAN would be unneeded. However, the text implies that the CFJ > itself (along with all its history, properties, etc?) CAN be "submitted > again". Is that something different? > > Maybe common sense will say no, it just means make a new CFJ by submitting > the statement again (with more arguments), but I'm kinda curious. > > -G. > It provides no mechanism, so I think all it would do would be to override something like a weekly limit on cases. -Alexis
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes on Application of Proposals 8357-8365
On 4/8/20 10:51 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: >> The text to replace is not found in the rule. The "and then itself" was >> removed by an earlier proposal (Proposal 8362). > I was worried this might happen. Entirely my fault. I resubmit the > above proposal (as closely as possible). > > -Aris But wouldn't your resubmitted proposal have the same bug as the first? -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes on Application of Proposals 8357-8365
i think e just omitted a "will". e meant "I will resubmit" this proposal On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 1:09 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 4/8/20 10:51 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > >> The text to replace is not found in the rule. The "and then itself" was > >> removed by an earlier proposal (Proposal 8362). > > I was worried this might happen. Entirely my fault. I resubmit the > > above proposal (as closely as possible). > > > > -Aris > > > But wouldn't your resubmitted proposal have the same bug as the first? > > -- > Jason Cobb > > -- >From R. Lee
