Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Yes, this was the subject of Andre's Thesis, and my unfinished thesis
>(unfinished because my committee chair pointed out that Andre had
>written it first!) This was the recommendation of both theses, IIRC.
Ah, cool. Must be a good idea then.
A while ago I started drafting a
Zefram wrote:
> No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule to
> stipulate any other means of determining precedence between Rules of
> equal Power. This applies to changes by the enactment or amendment
> of a Rule, or of any other form. This Rule takes precedence over
> any
Murphy wrote:
> The idea is that the CotC may effectively accept an Excess CFJ (by
> assigning it within the usual time limit), defer it (by assigning it
> beyond the usual time limit), or reject it (by failing to assign it
> at all). This could also say "The time limit ... is revoked", but
> thi
Levi wrote:
In this vein, everything after the
first paragraph of this proposal could be replaced with:
"The time limit for assigning a judge to an Excess CFJ is extended
by 106 years."
Is this only due to the deferral process not being specific enough? or
have I missed something else here?
Ed Murphy wrote:
Levi wrote:
Attempt at cleaning up the Excess CFJ rule. I've used the following
as a basis for this change
1. The use of 'dismiss' is unclear, due to DISMISS being a valid
judgement for a CFJ, but dismissal through a CFJ being an
Excess CFJ should be different to dismissal
Levi wrote:
Attempt at cleaning up the Excess CFJ rule. I've used the following
as a basis for this change
1. The use of 'dismiss' is unclear, due to DISMISS being a valid
judgement for a CFJ, but dismissal through a CFJ being an
Excess CFJ should be different to dismissal under rule 1565
6 matches
Mail list logo
