>> On Oct 28, 2018, at 6:46 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk"
>> <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 2018-10-28 at 15:40 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> While With Notice is a dependent action, demanding resignation is NOT
>> with notice: (2472/2)
>>
>> If a player is Overpowered, any player CAN Demand Resignation from
>> em by announcement, provided e has announced intent do to so
>> between four and fourteen days earlier. The Overpowered player is
>> then removed from all offices.
>>
>> While it’s functionally similar to With Notice, it’s not—it’s just by
>> announcement with a condition.
>
> Pretty much exactly this situation has come up before. See CFJ 2696.
> <https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2696>.
>
> --
> ais523
Thank you for this. Do you or anyone know of any similar precedents? Because
this one seems to be different in at least one material respect. As the judge
there wrote:
> Th[e contractual notice] clause not only defines a term that is different
> although similar in phrasing to the later-added "With Notice", it contains a
> reasonably clear (in common-language and common sense) description of what
> the term means and implies. The combination of linguistic and procedural
> difference as defined in the contract is sufficient to maintain this as a
> distinct mechanism from the Rules-added With Notice procedure. Its
> specificity within the contract, and secondarily its precedence in terms of
> timing, makes it a separate mechanism from the "With Notice" that was added
> to the ruleset.
In that CFJ, there was decided to be both linguistic AND procedural
differences. Here, there is perhaps some linguistic difference, but no actual
procedural difference at all that I can discern from the With Notice method.
But I agree with that twg’s argument has some compelling force to it. Oh well.
