Oh sorry! You're right, go ahead.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:52 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> R. Lee-- Is this not the operative decision on Cfj 3736? Seems to hold that
> CHOJ is broken.
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: omd
> Date: Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:43 AM
> Subject: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3736 assigned to omd
> To:
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:31 PM omd wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:24 PM Aris Merchant
> > wrote:
> > > I intend with 2 support to group-file a motion to reconsider. This
> > > ruling suggests that a person could potentially change a regulated
> > > quantity by communicating with its recordkeepor even if that method
> > > was not explicitly specified by a rule. This flatly contradicts Rule
> > > 2125, which says in part "A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as
> > > described by the Rules, and only using the methods explicitly
> > > specified in the Rules for performing the given action." The opinion
> > > cites CFJ 3425, but the "methods explicitly specified" provision did
> > > not exist at the time of that CFJ, and appears to abrogate the
> > > precedent it set.
> >
> > Whoops. I self-file a motion to reconsider.
>
> Revised judgement:
>
> I overlooked the "only using the methods" clause, which indeed
> postdates CFJ 3425 (it dates to 2017, while CFJ 3425 was judged in
> 2014).
>
> Levying a fine is certainly a regulated action, and Rule 2125 takes
> precedence over all of the Cold Hand of Justice-related rules due to
> higher power, so it seems that imposing the Cold Hand of Justice is
> impossible after all.
>
> I note in passing that there might be odd results if a similar
> situation occurred (rule claiming to make something POSSIBLE without
> specifying a method) with a rule that takes precedence over Rule 2125.
>
> I re-judge CFJ 3736 FALSE, and earn another 5 coins for doing so.
> --
> D. Margaux
>
--
>From R. Lee
