If this goes to CFJ, I favor it.
On Sun, 28 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> >> 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.
