I have changed the claim - minor changes to further clarify included. If I don't get more comments then I will fill in your id in a couple of days.
I like the idea of finding out if this claim is tl,dr or if lots of explanation is preferred. However if the claim trades at high values, I am wondering if POil40 paying (10 * (peak year - 2030)) might be needed more.
I think temporary freak circumstances are pretty rare and unlikely to trouble you. 'Widespread agreement of experts' is more likely to be troublesome but by the time we get to point where judgement can be made then it could easily be quite clear. Good luck with it anyway.
> On 11 September 2018 at 04:30 Michael Cowley <MCowley@blackandwhitecabs.com.au> wrote:
> After reading that I think I'm pretty comfortable that I know what you are going for. I'm happy to see all that text in the claim if it will fit. The claim does have a lot of potentially subjective and contentious issues for the judge to have to consider, so I might be signing on for a bit of fun here, but I don't see much alternative if you really want to eliminate temporary factors from the judgement.
> I'd be interested in seeing a companion claim using the same timeframe and scaling but with a purely objective criteria like pkyr20, just to see the difference in performance of the two claims over time. I'd be happy to judge both if you were interested in that.