I would be fine deferring to legal terms of art again (tolling, say) but I'm not so sure about mathematical. This is probably because I love legal interpretation and couldn't add two numbers up if I tried haha.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 9:00 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > 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. > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
