R. Lee-- Is this not the operative decision on Cfj 3736? Seems to hold that CHOJ is broken.
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:43 AM Subject: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3736 assigned to omd To: <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> 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. -- D. Margaux
