Re: DIS: Proto: Formalized Precedent

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 11:36 PM Gaelan Steele wrote: > Wow, thanks for taking the time to write this—it’s really interesting and > I think you have a lot of valid points. (Side note: interesting to see it > from a British perspective. My understanding of American law is that we

Re: DIS: Proto: Formalized Precedent

On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > I might favor some > carefully implemented system of injunctions or judicial orders that > allowed judges to remedy the short term harm caused by a > misunderstanding or rule violation... It took an incredibly complex (read: "very carefully

Re: DIS: Proto: Formalized Precedent

Wow, thanks for taking the time to write this—it’s really interesting and I think you have a lot of valid points. (Side note: interesting to see it from a British perspective. My understanding of American law is that we still operate under the “precedent is perfect” idea, which may have

Re: DIS: Proto: Formalized Precedent

Gaelan, first, thanks for the interesting proposal. I disagree with it for several reasons: First, there are some minor (fixable) technical problems in the proposal itself. An instrument doesn't nessicarily do anything, except perhaps alter or create a rule, and even that is kind of uncertain

DIS: Proto: Formalized Precedent

Proto: A Clarification is a type of instrument that always has 0.1 power. A clarification may only clarify existing rules, and may not have any functionality not already provided by a reasonably plausible interpretation of a rules; any other functionality is INEFFECTIVE. [Maybe: remove this