On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 17:07, Sean Hunt <ride...@gmail.com> wrote: > Roger Hicks wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 01:00, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: >>> >>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2682 >>> >>> ============================== CFJ 2682 ============================== >>> >>> It is POSSIBLE to increase a player's voting limit on an >>> ordinary decision by playing a Roll Call card. >>> >>> ======================================================================== >> >> There are two possible interpretations of R2156: the first is that it >> creates a static voting limit which can not be changed, and the second >> that it initializes a dynamic value voting limit which can then be >> modified as described in other rules. R2156 gives us no clear guidance >> on which of these interpretations should be used. However, other rules >> (such as R2260) would seem to suggest that the latter interpretation >> is more in line with the intent. Since one interpretation would lead >> to a conflict between rules and the other would not the correct choice >> is to use the latter. I judge TRUE. >> >> BobTHJ > > I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgment. Whether or not a given > interpretation would cause a rules conflict is not a valid reason to pick it > over any other (see R217). I do not know if this makes the judgment > incorrect or not. I recommend REMAND so that the judge can correct eir > arguments and possibly eir judgment. > If you'd like you can insert "in the judges opinion" after "the correct choice", because that is what matters here. Judges have latitude to select what they believe to be the best option when faced with multiple equally-plausible interpretations of a rule. If this case is appealed and REMANDed I will issue the same judgment with the addition of those four words.
BobTHJ
