On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, comex wrote: >> Reason: I believe that we came to think (via CFJ, or just discussion?) >> if R2019 "in a timely fashion SHALL" expires before the beginning of a >> month, the Speaker loses the ability to assign prerogatives (and thus >> none are assigned nor can be assigned for August, except via Deputisation). >> However, this interpretation would invalidate many late actions where a >> player must do something ASAP. > > CFJ 1863 is highly relevant here. For reference, BobTHJ was under > trial for "failing to assign an appropriate judgement, by means of > assigning an inappropriate judgement instead." (I love that wording.) > Presently, judges are prohibited from assigning inappropriate > judgements, but at the time judges were merely obligated to assign an > appropriate judgement ASAP.
The difference is that in your example, the assigning of an inappropriate judgement explicitly ends the CAN, by making the case cease to be open. In this situation, there's nothing that explicitly ends the implicit CAN (that's only implied by CFJ 1765's "SHALL = CAN by announcement") except that the SHALL means the player has broken the Rule at the end of the time limit. So, the question is, does CFJ 1765's general SHALL => CAN precedent mean that: 1: "SHALL asap" => "(SHALL and CAN) asap" or 2: "SHALL asap" => "(SHALL asap) and CAN" Long Agoran custom is in strong favor of #2, strict literalism (also an Agoran custom) says (I think) #1. -Goethe
