On 9/15/2020 12:41 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: >> I support. >> >> I'll actually go the other direction. The contract says "Any player CAN, >> with notice, file a proof of a claim of a valid judgement." With notice is >> a mechanism; in the absence of something saying that the claim must be >> "specified", the only requirements are the requirements for performing an >> action with notice. Those requirements include the intent and four day >> waiting period, and the need to specify the action and announce that one is >> performing it. However, there is no requirement to specify anything more >> than that. "With notice, I file a proof of a claim of a valid judgement" >> should work fine. >> >> To require more is to ignore the fact that the contract provides a >> mechanism for performing the action of filing a proof of claim. You're >> looking at what one might need to do to file a proof of claim in the >> absence of a definition, and then incorporating those requirements into the >> definition. You're changing "Any player CAN, with notice, file a proof of a >> claim of a valid judgement." to "Any player CAN, with notice, file a proof >> of a claim of a valid judgement, provided e..." >> >> If my reasoning is wrong, then Gaelan should be right. >> >> Also, sorry, I have a feeling my writing isn't the clearest right now. >> >> -Aris > > Aris, it sounds like your argument also applies to CFJ 3881. Is that right? > > It looks it's too late for a Motion to Reconsider but not for mooting > it. (I don't have an opinion about what the right answer is.) >
A moot in a linked case like this, run in parallel to the judge reconsidering it, runs the risk of the moot coming out differently than the judge's reconsideration, and that would really tangles the answer and would lead to a round of new cfjs anyway. I think it can be handled by the assumption that a change in 3882 simply overrules the precedent of 3881, which seems much less muddy than a moot procedure. -G.
