Perfect! Thanks for the vocabulary lesson. I think if it has a clear legal
usage citation we should use it - if you know the definition it's a concise
way to say it.
Fun fact: we used to explicitly defer to legal/mathematical definitions over
common language. From R754/7:
(2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that
meaning, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly
defined by the rules.
(3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,
and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by
default has the meaning it has in those contexts.
(4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule
by default has its ordinary-language meaning.
I think we got rid of after too many arguments about whether terms were
"primarily" mathematical/legal versus "primarily" ordinary-language.
On Thu, 25 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> Here’s an example from a US Supreme Court case, Northern Pipeline
> Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982).
>
> Final sentence of this paragraph:
>
> > Having concluded that the broad grant of jurisdiction to the bankruptcy
> > courts contained in 28 U. S. C. § 1471 (1976 ed., Supp. IV) is
> > unconstitutional, we must now determine whether our holding should be
> > applied retroactively to the effective date of the Act.[40]Our decision in
> > Chevron *88 Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S. 97 (1971), sets forth the three
> > considerations recognized by our precedents as properly bearing upon the
> > issue of retroactivity. They are, first, whether the holding in question
> > "decid[ed] an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly
> > foreshadowed" by earlier cases, id., at 106; second, "whether retrospective
> > operation will further or retard [the] operation" of the holding in
> > question, id., at 107; and third, whether retroactive application "could
> > produce substantial inequitable results" in individual cases, ibid. In the
> > present cases, all of these considerations militate against the retroactive
> > application of our holding today. It is plain!
that Congress' broad grant of judicial power to non-Art. III bankruptcy
judges presents an unprecedented question of interpretation of Art. III. It is
equally plain that retroactive application would not further the operation of
our holding, and would surely visit substantial injustice and hardship upon
those litigants who relied upon the Act's vesting of jurisdiction in the
bankruptcy courts. We hold, therefore, that our decision today shall apply only
prospectively.
>
>
> https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17768408304219861886&q=apply+prospectively&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33
>
> > On Oct 25, 2018, at 5:37 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Can you point me to a legal usage online somewhere? All the examples I
> > found
> > used it as meaning "sometime unspecified in the future" rather than "from
> > this
> > point onward". (of course not important if you change the word!)
> >
> >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >> Prospectively is the legal opposite of retroactively. I will try to
> >> come up with another way of explaining it for the rule text, but
> >> that's what it generally means.
> >>
> >> -Aris
> >>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 2:10 PM Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The first time I read it I assumed the exact opposite, so it's definitely
> >>> ambiguous.
> >>>
> >>> -twg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> >>>> On Thursday, October 25, 2018 7:31 PM, D. Margaux
> >>>> <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I would read it to mean that the change in verdict does not operate
> >>>> retroactively to affect any game actions that have already taken place.
> >>>> So, for example, if a player’s vote is worth 0 because e has 3 blots,
> >>>> and it is later determined that the verdict imposing those 3 blots was
> >>>> inappropriate and is changed to a new verdict by this mechanism, then
> >>>> that doesn’t retroactively increase the player’s vote strength. It just
> >>>> removes the blots going forward.
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Oct 25, 2018, at 3:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
> >>>>> Minor comment: I know the dictionary definition of the word, but I
> >>>>> don't know
> >>>>> what "prospectively" means in a practical sense in this rule (is there
> >>>>> a legal
> >>>>> term-of-art use of the word that I'm missing?)
> >>>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> The Adjudicator CAN assign any verdict, SHALL assign an appropriate
> >>>>>>> verdict, and SHOULD assign the appropriate verdict first-listed below
> >>>>>>> and identify all other appropriate verdicts. If the delivered verdict
> >>>>>>> is believed to be inappropriate, or if a verdict listed earlier below
> >>>>>>> is believed to be appropriate, then any player can change it to the
> >>>>>>> appropriate verdict first-listed below with 1 Agoran Consent. A
> >>>>>>> player SHOULD NOT do so unless it is clear that the new verdict is an
> >>>>>>> appropriate verdict, e.g. because a CFJ has determined that that is
> >>>>>>> the case. Once this occurs, any effects of the of the verdict, such
> >>>>>>> as blots, are prospectively undone.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
