On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Ed Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > ============================== CFJ 3022 ============================== > > scshunt gained points for CFJ 3011. > > ========================================================================
In this case, I've changed my mind: (1) "within any time limits for doing so" means "within whatever time limits for doing so exist", thus "within all time limits for doing so", not "within any time limit for doing so". (2) Furthermore, a time limit, like any requirement, must exist in the context of some penalty or system of denoting failure, i.e. a system of governance. Whatever the penalty is-- perhaps violation of a real-life contract, perhaps someone politely pointing out the limit has been violated or him shooting me-- it essentially resembles an external jurisdiction, and Agora generally ignores matters of external jurisdictions. (3) But even if my promise is considered to assume Agora's jurisdiction (by analogy with promises' ability to impose certain obligations, I suppose, as precedent states that the ability to act on behalf is a type of obligation), by CFJ 2361, the withholding of the promise's reward for not judging a case within a year is not considered a penalty because it isn't "certain" that a judge would "get it anyway"; someone else might cash the promise in the meantime, or the judge might not want it. Thus, the time limit for obtaining the reward is not considered a time limit for judging. (4) As far as I know, the weakest effect we have ever considered a penalty is my attempt to register on my birthday being judged ineffective; and that was a R101 case, where tradition is generally to interpret the rule as broadly as possible, whereas the author of Judge Points clearly did not intend it to apply to contracts. The lack of a faceless, template note of congratulation is a much weaker effect, and would not be considered a penalty in any case. FALSE.
