G. wrote:
On 4/11/2020 3:04 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:I CFJ, barring P.S.S., 'The above attempts to impose fines by the Cold Hand of Justice on twg and Murphy for failure to timely respond to a petition failed by Rule 2531(3), because each was an attempt "to levy a fine with a value that is blatantly and obviously unsuited to the conduct which constitutes the reason for its levy", after considering the sentencing guidelines in Rule 2557, or, in the alternative, failed because each was not enabled by Rule 2557.'(Sorry for the length of the CFJ statement; it's an experiment in writing a relatively self-contained one. I welcome comments on whether or not that's a good idea.)I'm not keen on this approach (I thought about it a bit), in looking at the "longer" statements in the CFJ index I think it decreases browsability and I don't think it particularly aids findability, and if it became a habit would take a re-think of how to design the index page. I could be wrong though, and serves as a reminder that I still haven't implemented search! [The amusing bit is that, for all its specificity, it jumbles the actual evidence, because "The above" doesn't have a referent when put in the case logs. It's always a (very minor) bother when callers use message-positional references in a statement because that usually changes in the case log and requires some annotation].
I think that's typically been handled by including the target of the
reference in evidence. Or is that the type of annotation that you meant?
More generally, lots of other statements (e.g. "X is a player", "X has
at least Y coins") depend on looking at arguments/evidence to work out
the real point of the case ("I think TRUE/FALSE/whatever because Z").
