Re: DIS: Summary Judgment is broken
i wrote this, what he said On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 6:48 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 7/4/2019 11:49 AM, James Cook wrote: > > 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. > > It says unequivocally at the top of R2451 that the PM CAN issue the > orders to perform the action, by announcement, which is what overrides the > INEFFECTIVE in R2531. > > It used to be a crime in R2531 to levy an improper fine rather than having > it be ineffective, so the MAY used to override the crime. Now the MAY has > no effect - but the CAN by announcement does the overriding. > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Summary Judgment is broken
On 7/4/2019 11:49 AM, James Cook wrote: 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. It says unequivocally at the top of R2451 that the PM CAN issue the orders to perform the action, by announcement, which is what overrides the INEFFECTIVE in R2531. It used to be a crime in R2531 to levy an improper fine rather than having it be ineffective, so the MAY used to override the crime. Now the MAY has no effect - but the CAN by announcement does the overriding.
Re: DIS: Summary Judgment is broken
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 15:52, Jason Cobb 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
DIS: Re: BUS: ritual
On 7/3/2019 10:24 PM, Rebecca wrote: i pay 7 coins to banish the ritual This is a better phrasing of the test case I was trying to do with CFJ 3750.
