On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 15:52, Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rule 2531 ("Referee Accountability") has higher power than Rule 2479
> ("Official Justice"), so all of the former's requirements apply to
> Summary Judgment. However, the entire point of Summary Judgment is that
> it doesn't need to have a reason to be applied.
>
> Thus I submit for comment this proto:
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2531 ("Referee Accountability") as follows:
>
> After list item (1) insert the following phrase: "Any attempt to
> levy a fine pursuant to the imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice
> is INEFFECTIVE if:"
>
> Renumber list items (2) - (8) to be items (1) - (7) in the new list.
>
> }
>
> The Rule 2541 ("Executive Orders") is at the same power as Rule 2531,
> but Rule 2541 explicitly claims precedence, so Rule 2531 doesn't apply,
> but this feels kind of fragile and tenuous. This proto would fix that.
R2531 specifically mentions summary judgement in item (5)(i), so I
suspect it is intended to apply to summary judgement. I don't mean to
imply that we must respect that, but I'm curious to hear from other
players why it's set up like that.
Also, I don't think R2451 overrides R2531. R2451 says the reason MAY
be any grievance, but MAY just means it doesn't violate the rules; I
don't think implies it's EFFECTIVE. In that case, based on the
wording, I do suspect it's intended to override R2531.
--
- Falsifian
