Voting results for Proposals 7028 - 7051:
[This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
following proposals. For each decision, the options available to
Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!).]
x7028 2.0 omd Too many exceptions
*7029 2.0 Walker Presidential Cleanup
*7030 2.0 Walker Speaker Responsibility
x7031 2.0 Turiski Fix proposal points
*7032 3.0 omd Flexibility (fixed)
*7033 2.0 omd I don't get the point of keeping the switch
*7034 2.0 omd NoVs suck
*7035 2.0 scshunt I like it in that report better
x7036 2.0 scshunt Clean up radioactive waste.
*7037 2.0 scshunt New name
*7038 1.7 scshunt Judicial Panel Reform
*7039 2.0 scshunt Win by Committee
*7040 1.0 scshunt Anarchy
x7041 2.0 Murphy Unconditional permanence
*7042 1.7 Murphy What's a rank?
*7043 2.0 Walker Judge Points Fix
*7044 1.0 Walker Bets
*7045 3.0 Walker Speed
*7046 1.0 Walker The Machine
x7047 3.0 Walker Disinterested Disinterested Fix
x7048 2.0 Yally War
*7049 1.7 omd No frivolous appeals
*7050 2.0 omd No more warp drive
x7051 2.0 Murphy Janitor's Local #574
7028 7029 7030 7031 7032 7033 7034 7035 7036 7037
omd F F A A F F F F A A
Roujo P F F F F F P F P F
scshunt P F F A F F F F F F
Tanner L. A F F F F F A F F F
Turiski P F F F F F P F A F
Walker P F F A F P F F P F
AI 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2
VI 1 *U* 5 1 *U* *U* 3 *U* 1 5
F/A 1/1 6/0 5/1 3/3 6/0 5/0 3/1 6/0 2/2 5/1
Quorum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Voters 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
7038 7039 7040 7041 7042 7043 7044 7045 7046 7047
omd F F A A P A P A F A
Roujo P F P F F F F F F P
scshunt F F F F F F P F A F
Tanner L. F F F A F F F F F F
Turiski P P P F F F F F F A
Walker P F F P F F F F F F
AI 1.7 2 1 2 1.7 2 1 3 1 3
VI *U* *U* 3 1.5 *U* 5 *U* 5 5 1.5
F/A 3/0 5/0 3/1 3/2 5/0 5/1 4/0 5/1 5/1 3/2
Quorum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Voters 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
7048 7049 7050 7051
omd A F F F
Roujo F F F F
scshunt A F F A
Tanner L. A F F A
Turiski F F F A
Walker F F P F
AI 2 1.7 2 2
VI 1 *U* *U* 1
F/A 3/3 6/0 5/0 3/3
Quorum 5 5 5 5
Voters 6 6 6 6
Text of adopted proposals:
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7029 (AI=2) by Walker
Presidential Cleanup
Amend Rule 2326 (The President) by replacing
The President CAN only
take actions as explicitly described/caused by a Rule or other
instrument of a power equal to or greater than the power of this
Rule.
with:
Causing the President to act is secured.
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7030 (AI=2) by Walker
Speaker Responsibility
Amend Rule 2326 (The President) by appending:
Should the President incur obligations under the Rules, then the
Speaker SHALL act to satisfy these obligations.
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7032 (AI=3) by omd
Flexibility (fixed)
[There have been some proposals recently on which I voted PRESENT, but
would have preferred a "weak" FOR or AGAINST vote. Make everyone's
voting limit 2 so this is possible.]
Amend Rule 683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) by replacing "one" with "two".
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7033 (AI=2) by omd
I don't get the point of keeping the switch
Amend Rule 1607 by replacing:
Distributability is switch possessed by proposals in the
proposal pool, tracked by the Promotor, with values
Distributable (default) and Undistributable.
The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal
Pool at any time. In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL,
as part of eir weekly duties, distribute any proposal that is in
the Proposal Pool and was Distributable at the beginning of that
Agoran week. The Promotor SHALL NOT distribute an
Undistributable proposal.
with:
The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal
Pool at any time. In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL,
as part of eir weekly duties, distribute all proposals in the
Proposal Pool that were in the Pool at the beginning of that
week.
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7034 (AI=2) by omd
NoVs suck
Repeal Rule 2230 (Notices of Violation).
Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacing the first paragraph with
this text:
Criminal cases are a subclass of judicial cases. Any person can
initiate a criminal case by announcement, specifying:
(a) a person (the Accused),
(b) an action the Accused allegedly performed or failed to
perform, and
(c) a rule allegedly violated by that action/inaction.
The initiator and each member of the Accused's basis are
unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case.
and by removing ", or punishment already applied through another
uncontested notice of violation, ", and by removing:
When a judicial question on culpability is judged after a number
of the Accused's points have been destroyed due to the
associated notice, the Accused CAN recreate those points in eir
possession by announcement.
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7035 (AI=2) by scshunt
I like it in that report better
Amend Rule 2336 (Office Points) by replacing each instance of "IADoP"
with "Scorekeepor".
[I typically want to see the salaries along with the Scorekeepor
report, and IADoP is already a pain and a half; move it to a far less
difficult office.]
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7037 (AI=2) by scshunt
New name
Amend Rule 2338 by replacing "A Player CAN cash a promise" with "A
Player (the cashier) CAN cash a promise".
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7038 (AI=1.7) by scshunt
Judicial Panel Reform
Enact a new power-1.7 rule entitled "Judgments by Judicial Panels" reading
As soon as possible after a judicial panel is assigned to a case, each
member of the panel SHALL publish an opinion indicating
a valid judgement to assign to the case -- only the last such
published opinion for each member is used to determine the
outcome. Each member SHOULD choose an appropriate judgement,
and include arguments for eir choice.
If, immediately after either all members have so published or
the time limit for so publishing has ended, a majority of the
members have opined for the same judgement, the panel acts to
deliver the judgement in question. If the panel publishes a
valid judgement via another mechanism specified in the Rules,
the requirement for individual members to publish individual
opinions is waived.
If an open case is assigned to a judicial panel, and one of
its members previously published an opinion for that case as
part of the same or a different judicial panel, then that
opinion stands for the newly-assigned panel unless the case
was judged and reopened in the meanwhile.
Enact a new power-1.7 rule entitled "Judicial Appeals Panels" reading
If the time period for judging an appeals case ends with no
majority opinion among members of the panel assigned to it,
then the CotC CAN, and SHALL as soon as possible, by
announcement cause the panel to judge either REMAND or REMIT
with or without prejudice, whichever e feels is most
appropriate. E SHALL NOT assign the case to another panel
solely due to its failure to judge. These requirements are
waived if the panel delivers a judgment in the meanwhile.
[I'm removing Concurring and Dissenting opinions; they seem to
serve little actual purpose since panelists invariably deliver
arguments with their opinions. Mimicking real courts here is
silly since there, the majority opinion is in fact a full
opinion and not just a ruling.]
Amend Rule 911 (Appeal Cases) by deleting
As soon as possible after a judicial panel is assigned, each
member of the panel SHALL publish an appeals opinion indicating
a valid judgement to assign to the case -- only the last such
published opinion for each member is used to determine the
outcome. Each member SHOULD choose an appropriate judgement,
and include arguments for eir choice. If prejudice is not
explicitly specified, then an opinion indicating AFFIRM or
REMAND implicitly indicates without prejudice, while an opinion
indicating REMIT or OVERRULE implicitly indicates with
prejudice.
If, immediately after either all members have so published or
the time limit for so publishing has ended, a majority of the
members have opined for the same judgement, the panel acts to
deliver the judgement in question. If the panel publishes a
valid judgement via another mechanism specified in the Rules,
the requirement for individual members to publish individual
opinions is waived.
If the time period ends with no majority judgement, then the
CotC CAN, and SHALL as soon as possible, by announcement cause
the panel to judge either REMAND or REMIT with or without
prejudice, whichever e feels is most appropriate.
Any panel member CAN publish a formal Concurring Opinion with
panel member support, provided that the panel has judged AFFIRM,
and SHOULD do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior
judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part. A
Concurring Opinion SHOULD explain the nature of the error(s) in
the prior judge's reasoning. Each Concurring Opinion has an
error rating, an integer from 1 to 99, with larger numbers
corresponding to larger errors in reasoning; it CAN be specified
in the announcement of intent, or else defaults to 50.
In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any
panel member CAN publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with
Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record
of the case; it can be used as an aid to help interpret the
decision.
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7039 (AI=2) by scshunt
Win by Committee
If the proposal entitled "Judicial Panel Reform" is not to be adopted
by the end of the message in which this proposal is adopted, then
this proposal is of no effect.
Enact a new power-1.7 rule reading
Victory cases are a subclass of judicial cases. Any person
believing emself to have satisfied a Victory Condition may
initiate a victory case with support, indicating the precise
Victory Condition which e believes to have satisfied and how
e believes e satisfied it.
The entities eligible to be assigned as judges of a victory
case are those judicial panels consisting of three first-class
players, none of them having called the case or been
disqualified as below. A player can be disqualified from judging
a victory case with Agoran Consent. The CotC SHOULD NOT assign
a panel to a victory case if there is a pending intent to
disqualify one of its members unless it is clear that the
intent will fail. Players SHOULD be disqualified only if they
have a vested interest in the victory, such as having been a
co-scammer.
A victory case has a judicial question on ascendancy, which is
always applicable. The valid judgments for this question are
GLORY, appropriate if the Victory Condition was satisfied as
described and a judgment of GLORY has not already been reached
on an earlier case over substantially the same victory, and
SHAME, appropriate otherwise.
When a judgment of GLORY has continuously been in effect for
two weeks, the caller is deemed to have won the game as
specified. The Herald shall forthwith award the patent title
Champion to the winner. Winning the game does not cause
Agora to end.
[N.B. forthwith means ASAP through a series of definitions you're
welcome to verify.]
Retitle Rule 2332 (Winning) to (Winning by Points) and amend it to read
A player CAN destroy 250 points in eir possession to satisfy
the Victory Condition of Accumulation.
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7040 (AI=1) by scshunt
Anarchy
Enact a new rule entitled "Anarchy" and reading
If a player causes the President to cease to be a player,
then that player satisfies the Victory Condition of Anarchy.
If the President is ever not a player, any person may register
em by announcement.
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7042 (AI=1.7) by Murphy
What's a rank?
[Promotor note: marked disinterested.]
Amend Rule 911 (Appeal Cases) by replacing "max(3,1+2*R) members
(where R is the rank of the prior case)" with "three members".
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7043 (AI=2) by Walker
Judge Points Fix
Amend Rule 2335 (Judge Points) by replacing
e gains 5 points.
with:
e gains 5 points, unless e
has already assigned judgement to the same case before.
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7044 (AI=1) by Walker
Bets
Enact a new Rule:
The betting period for a decision on the adoption of a proposal
or a degree begins when the proposal or thesis is submitted; the
betting period for an election begins when the nomination period
begins. The betting period for each decision ends when the
decision is initiated.
During the betting period for a given Agoran Decision, each
active player (the Better) CAN submit a Bet privately to the
vote collector for that decision.
To be valid, a Bet must
a) consist of an indication of which outcome the Better thinks
Agora will select in a specified decision,
b) clearly indicate the number of Points staked in the Bet - a
number of Points less than or equal to the number of Points
the Better owns,
c) not be sent to anyone other than the Better and the vote
collector,
d) not be submitted by the vote collector, and
e) be submitted during the betting period for the decision.
The validity of a Bet is measured when its betting market is
resolved. Only the last Bet submitted by each player (which
would otherwise be valid) is valid.
Players SHALL NOT reveal the existence or details of any Bet to
any person other than the vote collector before the betting
period has finished, except where allowed by this Rule;
violating this requirement is the Class-6 Crime of Collusion.
If the vote collector for a decision changes before the decision
has been resolved, and one or more Bets have been submitted for
the decision, then the previous vote collector SHALL inform the
new collector of these Bets and their contents privately, before
the decision is resolved. The previous vote collector becomes
eligible to submit Bets for the decision if the betting period
has not ended, and any previous Bets submitted by the new vote
collector become invalid.
Enact a new Rule:
There is a betting market on a decision if
a) more than one player has submitted a valid Bet on the
decision,
b) more than one outcome was Betted on, and
c) at least one of the Bets was for the correct outcome.
After a decision has been resolved, the vote collector CAN
resolve the betting market (if any) on the decision, and SHALL
do so as soon as possible.
The resolution of a betting market reveals the outcome betted on
by each Better, and the number of Points they staked, in valid
Bets. Upon the valid resolution of a betting market
a) any Points staked on an incorrect outcome are destroyed
b) an equal (or less due to rounding) number of Points are
awarded to the player(s) who Betted on the correct outcome,
such that the proportion of Points gained by each winning
Better is directly proportional to the number of Points they
staked, rounded down as necessary.
To be valid, the resolution must specify how many Points are
lost and gained by each Better.
The resolution of a betting market constitutes a self-ratifying
claim that the Bets in the resolution are valid, and that no
other valid Bets were submitted for the decision.
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7045 (AI=3) by Walker
Speed
[ Gives the Speaker a Big (but not entirely Pointless) Switch; lets
others join in the fun with Agoran Consent. Finds several different
ways of saying the same thing. Possibilities include adding faster or
slower speeds, although not necessarily ones accessible to the
President. ]
Enact a new Power-2 Rule entitled "Speed":
The Speed switch is a single switch, tracked by the Assessor,
with values of Slow, Normal (default) and Fast. The Speed switch
is secured.
When the Speed has not been changed in the past month, the
President CAN flip the Speed to Normal or Fast by announcement.
At any time, players CAN flip it to a given value with Agoran
Consent. In case of a lull, players CAN flip it to Slow without
objection.
Amend Rule 1728 (Dependent Actions) by replacing
a) A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the
action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and
method(s) (including the value of N for each method), at
most fourteen days earlier, and (if the action depends on
objections or notice) at least four days earlier.
with:
a) A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the
action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and
method(s) (including the value of N for each method), at most
fourteen days earlier, and (if the action depends on
objections or notice) at least X days earlier, where X is a
number which depends on the Speed at the time of intention as
follows: Slow: 5, Normal: 4, Fast: 2.
Amend Rule 107 (Initiating Agoran Decisions) by replacing
The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting
period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts
for seven days. The minimum voting period for a decision with
at least two options is seven days. The vote collector for a
decision with less than two options CAN and SHALL end the voting
period by announcement, if it has not ended already, and
provided that e resolves the decision in the same message.
with:
The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting
period for the decision. Where {X, Y} is a given Speed followed
by a number of days, the voting period lasts for Y days when the
Speed is X at the time of initiation: {Slow, 14}, {Normal, 7},
{Fast, 5}. The minimum voting period for a decision with at
least two options is five days. The vote collector for a
decision with less than two options CAN and SHALL end the voting
period by announcement, if it has not ended already, and
provided that e resolves the decision in the same message.
Amend Rule 2168 (Extending the voting period) by replacing "doubled"
with "increased to 14 days, except if it is already that length".
Amend Rule 2143 (Official Reports and Duties) by replacing
a) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that office's
weekly duties, then the holder of that office SHALL perform
it at least once each week.
with:
a) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that office's
weekly duties, then the holder of that office SHALL perform
it at least once each week, except if the Speed is Slow, in
which case the duties SHALL be completed once each fortnight.
Amend Rule 1023 (Common Definitions) by replacing
(a) The phrases "in a timely fashion" and "as soon as possible"
mean "within seven days". A requirement to perform an
action at an exact instant (e.g. "when X, Y SHALL Z"), but
not "in the same message", is instead interpreted as a
requirement to perform that action in a timely fashion after
that instant.
with:
(a) The phrases "in a timely fashion" and "as soon as possible"
mean "within X days", where X is 14 when the Speed is Slow,
7 when it is Normal and 5 when it is Fast. This time period
is set when the requirement is created (ie. X days before
the limit ends). A requirement to perform an action at an
exact instant (e.g. "when X, Y SHALL Z"), but not "in the
same message", is instead interpreted as a requirement to
perform that action in a timely fashion after that instant.
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7046 (AI=1) by Walker
The Machine
There exists an abstract entity called the Machine. The
Machinekeepor is an office, and tracker of the Machine. The
Machine possesses a switch, the Power Switch, tracked by the
Machinekeepor, with values of On and Off (default).
The Machine possesses a switch, the Magic switch, tracked by the
Machinekeepor, with values of Magic and More Magic (default).
Whenever the Magic switch is set to Magic, the Power switch is
set to Off immediately and CANNOT be flipped.
If the Magic switch is set to More Magic, the Machinekeepor CAN
flip the Power switch to On by announcement. The Machinekeepor
CAN flip the Power switch to Off by announcement.
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7049 (AI=1.7) by omd
No frivolous appeals
Amend Rule 911 (Appeal Cases) by appending this paragraph:
A person SHALL NOT appeal a judgement (except on a question of
sentencing) unless e reasonably believes that the judgement
might be inappropriate.
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7050 (AI=2) by omd
No more warp drive
[The ability to appeal culpability and sentencing separately has not
gotten much actual use, and as Yally has shown, is quite scammable in
a way that would require even more boilerplate to fix. May as well
slim things down by getting rid of judicial questions entirely.]
Retitle Rule 2158 (Judicial Questions) to Judges, and amend it to read:
At any time, each judicial case is either open (default),
suspended, or has exactly one judgement. This is a persistent
status that changes only according to the rules. The possible
types of judgement for a judicial case depend on the type of
case.
When a judicial case is open and has a judge assigned to it, the
judge CAN assign a valid judgement to it by announcement, and
SHALL do so as soon as possible, unless e is recused from the
case before the time limit for doing so has expired. A judge
SHOULD NOT assign an inappropriate judgement to any judicial
case. A judgement is valid and/or appropriate only as defined
by the rules. Defining these things is secured, with a power
threshold of 1.7. If more than one judgement is valid and
appropriate, then the choice between them is left to the judge's
discretion.
When a non-appeal judicial case is open, and its judge has
violated a time limit to assign a judgement to it, or is not an
active player, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL recuse that judge
with cause by announcement as soon as possible; however, this
requirement is waived if the judge assigns a judgement to it
first.
Amend Rule 1868 (Judge Assignment Generally) by replacing:
At any time, a judicial case either does not require a judge
(default) or requires a judge. This is not a persistent status,
but is evaluated instantaneously.
When a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned,
the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by
announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as possible.
with:
When a judicial case is open and has no judge assigned, the CotC
CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by announcement,
and SHALL do so as soon as possible.
Amend Rule 2164 (Judicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer) by replacing
"a judicial question in that case" with "that case".
Amend Rule 649 (Patent Titles) by replacing "judicial question" with
"judicial case".
Amend Rule 1769 (Holidays) by replacing "judicial question" with
"judicial case".
Amend Rule 991 (Judicial Cases Generally) by replacing "that either
require a judge or have at least one applicable judicial question that
has no judgement" with "without a judgement".
Amend Rule 591 (Inquiry Cases) by replacing:
An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is
always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are
as follows, based on the truth or falsity of the statement at
the time the inquiry case was initiated:
with:
The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows, based
on the truth or falsity of the statement at the time the inquiry
case was initiated:
and by replacing "judicial question which was not itself judged
IRRELEVANT" with "judicial case", and by replacing "judgement of the
question in an inquiry case" with "judgement of an inquiry case".
Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacing:
A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is
applicable at all times following the call for judgement. The
valid judgements for this question are:
with:
The valid judgements for a criminal case are as follows:
and by replacing "GUILTY, appropriate if" with "GUILTY with a valid
sentence, appropriate if", and by moving the paragraph about
recreating points to the end of the rule, and by replacing:
A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is
applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has
a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable
question on sentencing which has a judgement, the Accused is
hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on
sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in
effect.
with:
When a sentence has been assigned as part of a GUILTY judgement,
the Accused is known as the ninny, and the sentence is in
effect.
and by replacing "one destruction or transfer per question on
sentencing" with "one destruction or transfer per case".
Amend Rule 2277 (Appeals of Criminal Cases) by removing:
Unless otherwise specified, an appeal of a judgement in a
criminal case is assumed to be appealing the question of
culpability.
When a judgement on a criminal case's question of culpability is
suspended, the judgement (if any) on its question of sentencing
is also suspended. Afterward, if the first judgement is
assigned again, then so is the second.
Amend Rule 2318 (Motions to Reconsider) by replacing "question" with "case".
Amend Rule 911 (Appeal Cases) by replacing
An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is
applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The
valid judgements for the question on disposition are of the form
"<action> with prejudice" or "<action> without prejudice". Such
a judgement is generally appropriate if and only if
with
The valid judgements for an appeal case are of the form
"<action> with prejudice" or "<action> without prejudice". Such
a judgement is generally appropriate if and only if
and by replacing "prior question" with "prior case", and by replacing
"the question on disposition in the appeal case" with "the appeal
case", and by replacing "judicial question" with "judicial case".
