root wrote:
On 6/19/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I call for appeal of CFJ 1684. Not because I necessarily disagree with
its reasonableness, but as it conflicts with the (now possibly
non-existent
judgments of) 1622 and 1623. A Court of Appeals on a CFJ out of the
self-
referential loop is the best way to finally resolve the issue of
conflicting
precedents or pseudo-precedents.
I don't follow. What can an appeal of CFJ 1684 accomplish in this
regard that the judgment itself does not? Regardless of the statuses
of CFJs 1622 and 1623, CFJ 1684 is a more recent judgment, and so we
should abide by that precedent rather than by the older ones.
It can (if the Board of Appeals agrees) accomplish the reversal of
the judgement of CFJ 1684. Not because I disagree with its
reasonableness either, but I find the judgements of CFJs 1622 and
1623 to also be reasonable, and heavily favored by the best interests
of the game (specifically the avoidance of a really obnoxious amount
of gamestate recalculation).
