On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 04:00, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Rule 991 states: > > > At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or > > assigned exactly one judgement. > > > What exactly does it mean for a CFJ to be "assigned exactly one > judgement"? Specifically, does this include judgements that are not > listed as "valid judgements" by Rule 591, such as UNDETERMINED? If it > does not, then we potentially have a situation where every CFJ that > doesn't have a judgement listed in the current rules reverts back to > being either open or suspended, which might be a mess to untangle. > > Potentially relevant: CFJ 3638 [0], which found that something that is > not a "valid Notice of Honour" can nevertheless be a "Notice of Honour". > > [0]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3638
One thought: Rule 217, power 3, refers to "past judgements". I think Rule 591 (which defines the valid judgements) to define what a "judgement" is would go beyond a "reasonable clarification". I'm not sure if that logic extends to Rule 591 not being allowed to clarify Rule 991's notion of judgement, though. The text "At any time, each CFJ is either ..." feels more technical to me than R17's simple "past judgements", so R591 might be able to clarify the meaning without triggering R217's "...do not overrule common-sense interpretations or common definitions" clause. I don't see why the precedent in CFJ 3638 wouldn't apply here, though. - Falsifian
