Zefram wrote: > Where is the Infraction of Invisibilitating defined? Ah yes, you're right here. It was defined in Proposal 4513, but as per R1503/5: "An action or inaction is a Crime or an Infraction only if defined as such by the Rules." so this overrules the extra-Rules definition of the Infraction.
On the other hand, in the Coat of Arms case, there's no prohibition against a coat of arms being defined. In this case I think the CFJ "The Agoran Coat of Arms is X" would be evidence-based: 1. If a judge can find the Proposal, e can judge TRUE. 2. If a judge can't, FALSE or DISMISS. 3. Other line, since it's not in the rules, it's "not relevant to the Rules", DISMISS by precedent. It's what you seem to be suggesting But this is problematic, isn't this the same case as "no longer relevant" Patent Titles which are no longer defined in the rules, but (by old CFJ?) are still tracked as they haven't been revoked? In any case, it's bad form and should be in the rules (I think invisibilitating was a joke on someone who tried to do this for something more substantial). -Goethe
