Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: [Astronomor] Weekly Report
On 8/4/2019 9:54 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Other option, after reading more thoroughly: I think the later CFJ is > more > correct, personally - you could just assume that that one overruled the > previous and see if anyone *else* wants to CFJ that. Depends on which > one you (as Officer) think is most correct. More general reflection - if two CFJs contradict, then the later one is the "standing/current" interpretation. If the later one improperly ignored precedent when it was made, then the correct thing (outside the Motion/Moot window) is to call another CFJ requesting that the third case overrule the second one. However, if you're happy with/believe the later one, no CFJ required. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: [Astronomor] Weekly Report
On 8/4/2019 9:51 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 8/4/2019 9:15 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: > Yay, directly contradictory judgements. > > R2576 has never changed, so there's no reason for this contradiction, or to > think that either judgement would be invalidated between the time it was > issued and now. > > I don't know how I'm supposed to deal with that. Do I need to call yet > another CFJ? Since one didn't reference the other, yeah - a CFJ that mentions both of those is probably needed now. Or a ratification + legislative clarification and don't worry about what the past state was. Other option, after reading more thoroughly: I think the later CFJ is more correct, personally - you could just assume that that one overruled the previous and see if anyone *else* wants to CFJ that. Depends on which one you (as Officer) think is most correct. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: [Astronomor] Weekly Report
On 8/4/2019 9:15 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: > Yay, directly contradictory judgements. > > R2576 has never changed, so there's no reason for this contradiction, or to > think that either judgement would be invalidated between the time it was > issued and now. > > I don't know how I'm supposed to deal with that. Do I need to call yet > another CFJ? Since one didn't reference the other, yeah - a CFJ that mentions both of those is probably needed now. Or a ratification + legislative clarification and don't worry about what the past state was. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: [Astronomor] Weekly Report
On 8/4/19 3:01 AM, James Cook wrote: On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 06:42, Jason Cobb wrote: On 8/4/19 2:38 AM, Rebecca wrote: COE: I am not a player, so I dont own a spaceship. You also have to delete a sector for me and for nch. Accepted. Revision: What was R. Lee's spaceship is currently possessed by the Lost and Found Department, pursuant to CFJ 3699. -- Jason Cobb There's a newer judgement that seems to contradict that: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3729 Yay, directly contradictory judgements. R2576 has never changed, so there's no reason for this contradiction, or to think that either judgement would be invalidated between the time it was issued and now. I don't know how I'm supposed to deal with that. Do I need to call yet another CFJ? -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: [Astronomor] Weekly Report
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 06:42, Jason Cobb wrote: > > On 8/4/19 2:38 AM, Rebecca wrote: > > COE: I am not a player, so I dont own a spaceship. You also have to delete > > a sector for me and for nch. > > > Accepted. > > Revision: What was R. Lee's spaceship is currently possessed by the Lost > and Found Department, pursuant to CFJ 3699. > > -- > Jason Cobb There's a newer judgement that seems to contradict that: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3729 -- - Falsifian
