Hi omd, When a Motion to Reconsider is filed, I drop the old arguments entirely from the case log, so the old judgement isn't mistaken for precedent (there's no objective way of knowing whether motion-filers are objecting to minor portions, or the whole thing, and keeping both gets quite confusing). Your revised judgement below seems to depend on some of that long original judgement though (references to CFJ 3425 eg.) and I'd hate the detailed work to get lost - are there parts that should be kept?
-G. On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 9:43 PM omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:31 PM omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:24 PM Aris Merchant > > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I intend with 2 support to group-file a motion to reconsider. This > > > ruling suggests that a person could potentially change a regulated > > > quantity by communicating with its recordkeepor even if that method > > > was not explicitly specified by a rule. This flatly contradicts Rule > > > 2125, which says in part "A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as > > > described by the Rules, and only using the methods explicitly > > > specified in the Rules for performing the given action." The opinion > > > cites CFJ 3425, but the "methods explicitly specified" provision did > > > not exist at the time of that CFJ, and appears to abrogate the > > > precedent it set. > > > > Whoops. I self-file a motion to reconsider. > > Revised judgement: > > I overlooked the "only using the methods" clause, which indeed > postdates CFJ 3425 (it dates to 2017, while CFJ 3425 was judged in > 2014). > > Levying a fine is certainly a regulated action, and Rule 2125 takes > precedence over all of the Cold Hand of Justice-related rules due to > higher power, so it seems that imposing the Cold Hand of Justice is > impossible after all. > > I note in passing that there might be odd results if a similar > situation occurred (rule claiming to make something POSSIBLE without > specifying a method) with a rule that takes precedence over Rule 2125. > > I re-judge CFJ 3736 FALSE, and earn another 5 coins for doing so.
