On 7/2/08, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I call a inquiry CFJ on the following statement: "The CotC MAY NOT > refuse cases based on cases being excess as defined by Rule 2175" > > Evidence: > Rule 101(iii) gives all persons the "right to initiate a formal > process to resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable > expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved." > In the event that a person already initiated 5 CFJs during the Agoran > week, if the person calls another CFJ to resolve a matter of > controversy, and the CotC refuses the case, the person's reasonable > expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved is violated.
Gratuitous arguments: The statement is definitely too strong as disallowing some CFJs (e.g. nonsense CFJs, duplicate CFJs) likely do not implicate the R101(iii) right as either no actual matter of controversy is involved or there already existed a reasonable expectation that the controversy would be resolved through a formal process (and there the CotC rejection can be considered to serve as a formal recognition of that). It may be the CotC is prevented from excersizing in eir discrestion to decline excess CFJs in the extraordinarily unlikely and near-impossible to demonstrate situation where a person would apparently need to initiate more than an average of more than 5 CFJs per Agoran week for some non-trivial period of time (being forced to wait a week or two or three probably does not infringe or substantially abridge the right, at least so long as no statute of limitations is implicated) to address actual matters of controversy. This is doubly hard to do as, per game custom, the reasoning in a judgement of a CFJ can be reasonably expected to also resolve similar controversies. So, a person would need to have 5 substantially different controversies to resolve per week, and that after all reasonable tricks for combining them into less CFJs. -woggle
