I move reconsideration too, however, I suggest to include how contradiction rules would come into play.
I agree that an Asset defined by various backing documents cannot exist, but wouldn't the lower-priority backing documents be superseded by the higher priority one, in the case that multiple would-be backing documents exist? (Given that, in the context of there only being one backing document, the inclusion of another would-be and lower priority/Power backing document would create a contradiction, therefore it defers to what the first one states. Or perhaps its better interpreted that the inclusion of that second backing document simply poofs away the asset, as all of the Rules are considered simultaneously and then contradictions/processing solved after that.) On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 5:02 AM, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Aris Merchant > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Judge's arguments for CFJ 3532: > > I intend to call for reconsideration with two support. > > The judgement deserves credit for its ample demonstration of how the > final result - shinies being assets - is supported by *all four* of > game custom, common sense, past judgements, and the best interests of > the game. Nevertheless, it’s too divorced from the text to satisfy > me. It starts out by quoting the operative clause, but thereafter > devotes itself entirely to analyzing the four factors; it makes no > attempt to analyze the wording, and doesn't propose a specific > definition of “solely because” that justifies the result. After all, > the four factors only apply “where the text is silent, inconsistent, > or unclear”. While there’s certainly *some* inclarity here, that’s > not a license to apply the factors willy-nilly to the entire meaning > of the rule; our custom is more conservative than that. The factors > should only be used to resolve the inclarity - that is, to decide on a > meaning among the plausible alternatives. > > I suspect it’s entirely possible to come up with a definition that > comports with the judge’s result (and establish its plausibility), and > indeed that the judge would be capable of doing so on reconsideration > - but e has not done so here. > > (Or in other words, the judge needs to explain why eir interpretation > “doesn't violate the plain meaning of any of the rules in question”, > as e claims.) >
