On 6/11/2020 3:11 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 6:09 PM Jason Cobb wrote: >> >> I point my finger at the H. Arbitor for failing to assign a judge to CFJ >> 1706 in a timely fashion, although I request that the H. Referee not >> punish em too harshly. >> >> CFJ 1706 [0] was judged by the Pineapple Partnership, which at the time, >> was legally a person and thus eligible to judge judicial cases. However, >> Rule 869 does not currently define any partnerships as persons: >> >>> Any organism that is generally capable of freely originating and >>> communicating independent thoughts and ideas is a person. Rules to >>> the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons. >> >> >> Rule 991 says: >> >>> Judge is an untracked CFJ switch with possible values of any >>> person or "unassigned" (default). >> >> and >> >>> When a CFJ's judge is unassigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any >>> eligible player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so >>> in a timely fashion. >> >> >> Because the Pineapple Partnership is not a person, at some point in the >> past, CFJ 1706's Judge came to have the default value of "unassigned" by >> Rule 2162: >> >>> If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a possible value, >>> it comes to have its default value. >> >> >> Seeing as CFJ 1706 is unassigned, the Arbitor SHALL assign an eligible >> player to it in a timely fashion. E has not done so in the previous >> week, and this has failed to meet this requirement. >> >> >> [0]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1706 >> >> -- >> Jason Cobb >> > > I need to conduct a more thorough investigation before resolving this, > but on a first pass, R911 is poorly drafted because it imposes a > requirement to do something "in a timely fashion" after every > continuous moment in a series, which makes me wonder whether G. has > violated this rule infinitely many times. Obviously, that's not the > intent and not an interpretation I plan to take, but I do think we > should rephrase it. >
Conversely, perhaps I never violated it. It's always "SHALL in a timely fashion after now" so the deadline is never met.
