On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 09:22 +1000, V.J Rada wrote: > ------------------Bar-------------------- > I bar Cuddlebeam > ------------------Statement------------------ > I call for judgement on this statement. "CFJ 3509 has no judgement"
I'm interpreting these three messages as a single action, split across three messages (rather than calling three effectively identical CFJs). I recommend resolving the potential ambiguity by retracting any CFJs you've created other than the one that I'm assigning here. This is CFJ 3526. I assign it to o. > -------------------Evidence-------------------- > This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what happened > though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be too much > of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig > > On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they refused > to judge 3509. On May 25, they judged it DISMISS. On May 25, PSS moved for > reconsideration. On May 25, Cuddlebeam accepted reconsideration. On June 1, > CB submitted a message titled "Judgement of CFJ 3509" with identical text > to their previous Judgement in CFJ 3508. They now refuse to judge it again, > despite accepting reconsideration. > -----------Argument------------ > There are three possibilities. 1: The statement is TRUE. The DISMISS > judgement is invalid as overridden by him agreeing to reconsider. The later > judgement is invalid as a judgement for a different statement. NOTE: If the > statement is TRUE, the CFJ has been open for over 7 days and can be > reassigned wink wink nudge nudge put me in coach. 2: The statement is FALSE > because the latter judgement is valid, even if it refers to a different > CFJ. 3: The statement is FALSE because the earlier judgement is valid. > Cuddlebeam agreed to reconsider it, but on June 10 again refused to judge > it. This should be taken as a refusal to reconsider. Thus, the DISMISS > judgement is valid. > > GLHF! -- ais523 Arbitor
