The following public announcement was not an on-purpose plan, but something I realized only while making the assessor's report, having seen ais523's recent arguments on Continuity of Entities.
Proposal 7616 repealed Inquiry Cases and Criminal Cases, and Appeals, and created a process with a new (ancient) name of Calls for Judgement, a different set of judgement, and a very different Appeals process called a Moot. Even IF Definition and Continuity of Entities still existed as a rule, it seems to me that these are new entities, and the still- outstanding Inquiry Cases, Criminal Cases, and appeals no longer require resolution, nor have a method for resolution, though they're still part of "past precedent" which is defined loosely. Since there's nothing keeping people from raising the same case again under the new rules, I don't think this violates the (now in R217, see Prop 7614) right to a resolution process. R217 speaks of the right to INITIATE a process, which is possible under the old and new systems. It MAY screw up Fool's right to have eir criminal judgement reconsidered, although that can be handled with a new case: since we have no criminal system, it can be a TRUE/FALSE on "Fool was guilty on X", this is effectively a formal reconsideration that can be initiated. If you disagree, please speak up, ESPECIALLY as (if a right was violated), the R217 clause would make the rule changes in question "wholly void and without effect."
