Well that screws up my Oathbreaking CFJ *grumble grumble*.
Jason Cobb
On 6/17/19 12:43 AM, omd wrote:
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:31 PM omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:24 PM Aris Merchant
<thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
I intend with 2 support to group-file a motion to reconsider. This
ruling suggests that a person could potentially change a regulated
quantity by communicating with its recordkeepor even if that method
was not explicitly specified by a rule. This flatly contradicts Rule
2125, which says in part "A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as
described by the Rules, and only using the methods explicitly
specified in the Rules for performing the given action." The opinion
cites CFJ 3425, but the "methods explicitly specified" provision did
not exist at the time of that CFJ, and appears to abrogate the
precedent it set.
Whoops. I self-file a motion to reconsider.
Revised judgement:
I overlooked the "only using the methods" clause, which indeed
postdates CFJ 3425 (it dates to 2017, while CFJ 3425 was judged in
2014).
Levying a fine is certainly a regulated action, and Rule 2125 takes
precedence over all of the Cold Hand of Justice-related rules due to
higher power, so it seems that imposing the Cold Hand of Justice is
impossible after all.
I note in passing that there might be odd results if a similar
situation occurred (rule claiming to make something POSSIBLE without
specifying a method) with a rule that takes precedence over Rule 2125.
I re-judge CFJ 3736 FALSE, and earn another 5 coins for doing so.
