Taral wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The action in question was failure to act in accordance with the contract, >> and I draft rule that root did not commit such a failure. INNOCENT seems >> correct here. >> >> Would it help if we just merged the two options? > > Well, the problem is that there's two ways to phrase the CFJ: > > "X did Y that violates Z" -- UNIMPUGNED > > "X did something that violates Z" -- INNOCENT(?)
I thought I'd protoed a new judgement for "X did something that violates Z" - OVERGENERAL, perhaps? Feel free to propose it.
