Oh sorry! You're right, go ahead. On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:52 PM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 > -- >From R. Lee