On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 11:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Wed, 20 May 2009, Elliott Hird wrote: > >>> I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgment because remanding > >>> here was an awful tiebreakre. > > I submit the following proposal, "Two tiered tiebreaker", AI 2.0: > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Amend Rule 911 (Appeal Cases) by deleting: > If the time period ends with no majority judgement, > the panel acts to deliver a judgement of REMAND. > > Amend Rule 911 (Appeal Cases) by inserting the following new > paragraph immediately after the paragraph in which the above > deletion occurred: > > If the time period ends with no majority judgement, then: > - if the Justiciar has published an opinion on the case > clearly marked as the Justiciar's Opinion and indicating > a valid judgement, and that judgement is the same as > one given by at least panel member (other than the > Justiciar), then the panel delivers that judgement; > - otherwise, the CotC CAN and SHALL act for the panel by > announcement to deliver a judgement of either REMAND or > REASSIGN, whichever e feels is most appropriate. > > [The Justiciar can just submit an opinion when e feels like it, > and it's used as the tiebreaker when needed].
Can you remove the hot-or-cold thing at the same time? This serves a similar purpose, has a similar spirit, and will create less undue delay on court cases. -- ais523
