I would be fine deferring to legal terms of art again (tolling, say) but
I'm not so sure about mathematical. This is probably because I love legal
interpretation and couldn't add two numbers up if I tried haha.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 9:00 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Perfect! Thanks for the voc
Perfect! Thanks for the vocabulary lesson. I think if it has a clear legal
usage citation we should use it - if you know the definition it's a concise
way to say it.
Fun fact: we used to explicitly defer to legal/mathematical definitions over
common language. From R754/7:
(2) A term
Here’s an example from a US Supreme Court case, Northern Pipeline Construction
Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982).
Final sentence of this paragraph:
> Having concluded that the broad grant of jurisdiction to the bankruptcy
> courts contained in 28 U. S. C. § 1471 (1976 ed., Supp
Can you point me to a legal usage online somewhere? All the examples I found
used it as meaning "sometime unspecified in the future" rather than "from this
point onward".(of course not important if you change the word!)
On Thu, 25 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Prospectively is the legal
Prospectively is the legal opposite of retroactively. I will try to
come up with another way of explaining it for the rule text, but
that's what it generally means.
-Aris
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 2:10 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> The first time I read it I assumed the exact opposite, so it's de
The first time I read it I assumed the exact opposite, so it's definitely
ambiguous.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 7:31 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> I would read it to mean that the change in verdict does not operate
> retroactively to affect any game actions
I would read it to mean that the change in verdict does not operate
retroactively to affect any game actions that have already taken place. So, for
example, if a player’s vote is worth 0 because e has 3 blots, and it is later
determined that the verdict imposing those 3 blots was inappropriate a
Minor comment: I know the dictionary definition of the word, but I don't know
what "prospectively" means in a practical sense in this rule (is there a legal
term-of-art use of the word that I'm missing?)
On Thu, 25 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> > The Adjudicator CAN assign any verdict, SHALL a
> On Oct 24, 2018, at 11:32 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> Okay. Revised plan:
>
> The Adjudicator CAN assign any verdict, SHALL assign an appropriate
> verdict, and SHOULD assign the correct veridicr and list all other
> appropriate verdicts. If a verdict is believed to be incorrect, any pl
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 6:31 PM D Margaux wrote:
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 2018, at 7:29 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Because I think it’s important to know why a verdict is assigned. I
> > disagree with your assertion that the major concern is the disposition
Okay. Revised plan:
The Adjudicator CAN assign any verdict, SHALL assign an appropriate
verdict, and SHOULD assign the correct veridicr and list all other
appropriate verdicts. If a verdict is believed to be incorrect, any player
can change it to be what they think is correct after completing depe
Yes. But I think this should be enforced with at most a SHOULD. I think
this is a reasonable place where the Adjudicator can determine eir
preferred style, and I think they should have the flexibility to do so.
The way it is written, I can literally reach back to any act for the past
however-
Right. That’s the point. Sorry for not making this clear earlier. Saying
that it’s more than 14 days old doesn’t set any precedent, and in general I
think the merits should be addressed if possible. That’s why I was talking
about precedents earlier. For instance, I don’t want a case to be decided
o
As an example, one of the easiest things to determine is whether
something happened 14+ days ago. However Justified, Inculpable, or
Unaware have (historically) been more subject to CFJs. This would
force someone to send a case to CFJ to determine if it fit one of
those more complicated categor
On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 6:10 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I'm not sure about this proliferation of verdicts. In a previous system,
> > many of your categories are actually done in the Sentencing phase.
> > E.g. "Guilty/not guilty" was a finding of fact
> On Oct 24, 2018, at 7:29 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> Because I think it’s important to know why a verdict is assigned. I
> disagree with your assertion that the major concern is the disposition of
> the instant case. The precedent set for future cases is also crucially
> important. It's
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 6:10 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Overall this is nice! Haven't read others' comments so don't know if
> these have come up, but just a couple points.
>
> > Create a new Power 1.7 Rule entitled "Guilt", with the following text:
> >
> > The correct verdict is the first ap
Overall this is nice! Haven't read others' comments so don't know if
these have come up, but just a couple points.
> Create a new Power 1.7 Rule entitled "Guilt", with the following text:
>
> The correct verdict is the first appropriate listed verdict. A
> verdict is appropriate if and o
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 5:56 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > The reason I am so reluctant to drop this exception is twofold. In part,
> it
> > is because I have a general dislike of exceptions. They make everything
> > messier, and if you use them often e
On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> The reason I am so reluctant to drop this exception is twofold. In part, it
> is because I have a general dislike of exceptions. They make everything
> messier, and if you use them often enough you start including them in spots
> where you don’t need t
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 5:20 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Create a new Power 3.0 rule, entitled "Required Actions", with the
> following
> > text:
>
> I really don't think this is a good idea, for two reasons. First, this:
> > without evident bad fa
On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Create a new Power 3.0 rule, entitled "Required Actions", with the following
> text:
I really don't think this is a good idea, for two reasons. First, this:
> without evident bad faith,
gives rise to meta-CFJs on whether it was done without eviden
> > Amend Rule 991, Calls for Judgement, by appending as a new paragraph at the
> > end of the rule
> >
> > "If a person, otherwise required to take a given action, refrains from
> > doing
> > so while awaiting the outcome of a CFJ relevant to eir ability
> > or obligation to take the action,
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 3:51 PM D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 2018, at 6:27 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> However, a
> >>> player SHALL NOT make a accusation of which e believes the Defendant
> >>> not to be guilty without explaining emself in the
> On Oct 24, 2018, at 6:27 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>>> However, a
>>> player SHALL NOT make a accusation of which e believes the Defendant
>>> not to be guilty without explaining emself in the same message; to do so
>>> is the Class-5 Crime of Witch-Hunting.
>>
>> This is ambiguous—it cou
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 6:03 AM D Margaux wrote:
> I think this is a great revision. Some comments for your consideration
>
> For appeals, we could use the same reconsideration and moot process as for
> CFJs, and
> potentially use the same rule.
I'd really prefer to keep appeals simple for now.
I think this is a great revision. Some comments for your consideration
For appeals, we could use the same reconsideration and moot process as for
CFJs, and
potentially use the same rule.
> Amend Rule 2152, "Mother, May I?", by appending at the end of the first
> paragraph the text
> "Every ac
Okay, my current TODO list for this proposal:
-Make the change to the UNAWARE verdict mentioned below.
-Slightly expand the Arbitor's new jurisdiction to include everything
currently in eir jurisdiction.
-Fully pragmatise appeals.
-Aris
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:45 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsof
Hmm. What if I make it stronger, as in “The Defendant could not reasonably
have been expected to know that the Act was ILEGAL”? That way it only
applies in cases that are really well and truly ambiguous.
-Aris
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:42 PM Rebecca wrote:
> Yeah, it's the rule of lenity from c
Yeah, it's the rule of lenity from criminal law. I'm fine with you having
it in if you want (I'm barely even a player of this game at this point) but
given that this system is so discretionary anyway I don't see that we need
it. I instituted appeals by CFJ because they're worth having but a plethor
I can split it off into a separate proposal. It’s something we’ve used
successfully before, however. It basically says that if the rule is
ambiguous, the ambiguity is resolved in the favor of the defendant unless
there’s already a CFJ somewhere clearing it up. Still want it separated?
-Aris
On Tu
please remove UNAWARE from this, that basically removes interpretation of
criminal rules entirely.
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:23 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, here's a proto of my criminal justice reform. Again, D Margaux,
> sorry for the duplication of effo
Okay, here's a proto of my criminal justice reform. Again, D Margaux,
sorry for the duplication of effort. I borrowed one of your ideas (the
one about the time when tardiness happens needing to be defined), so
I've added you as a coauthor.
-Aris
---
Title: Criminal Justice Reform Act
Adoption ind
> On Jun 30, 2017, at 12:18 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>> Each player who, on the date this proposal is enacted, owes an
>> Apology on a Yellow Card shall be assumed, for all purposes, to have
>> Apologized correctly and completely, on the da
On Thu, 29 Jun 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
Each player who, on the date this proposal is enacted, owes an
Apology on a Yellow Card shall be assumed, for all purposes, to have
Apologized correctly and completely, on the date this proposal is
enacted.
I suspect this will not work, bec
Title: Criminal Justice Reform
AI: 2
{{{
The office of Referee becomes empty.
Each player who, on the date this proposal is enacted, owes an Apology on a
Yellow Card shall be assumed, for all purposes, to have Apologized correctly
and completely, on the date this proposal is enacted.
36 matches
Mail list logo
