[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >MMI does not define "CAN" (except in the context of "CAN ONLY"), >though of course the natural-language definition does apply.
I think it should define "CAN", as the antonym of "CANNOT". In the absence of explicit definition, I intend it to be read that way, which is pretty much the natural meaning anyway. I'm using it in situations where the default is "CANNOT". >This CAN+SHALL pattern appears again later, suggesting that the >definition of "SHALL" should be amended to include "can, unless >explicitly prohibited by the rules". Nonono! That would defeat the point of MMI. CAN and SHALL are orthogonal concepts, and MMI resolves the problem of "shall" being read as a combination of them. Don't mix them up. >> The terms defined in this paragraph are deprecated, > >Why? They're useful (other rules currently use them), Because they're gratuitous verbiage. They're used only in one other rule, which is specifically concerned with attaching additional (non-judicial) semantics to internal events within the judicial system. There's nothing that's concerned with the judicial significance of the events being referred to. Hence I don't see any rationale for a convenient way to refer to these events from outside the context of the judicial system. Previously they were the terms used internally in the judicial system. R2126 was written to use the judicial system's internal terminology. With the judicial system changing, so that those terms are no longer natural judicial terminology, R2126 should be updated to use the new judicial terminology. I just don't want to put that amendment in the judicial reform proposal where it would require AI=3. >> The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the >> case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one >> person from assignment as judge of the case. > >Why only one? I think barring three people is unbalanced, particularly so with the smaller pool of judges of The Standing Court. Barring the initiator and one of eir choice means that on a polarised issue one person on each side is barred, which seems fair. [Various proposed small fixes accepted.] >So a CFJ that depends on another CFJ can't be dismissed on the grounds >that the other CFJ hasn't been judged yet. If the other CFJ is purely a point of law then yes. The judge is required to make a definitive decision on the law. If the judge of the other CFJ is tardy, then the judge of this CFJ will have to decide the law emself, and the other judge will be obliged to follow. The judicial system is not fussy about the order in which CFJs get judged. >These lists should be combined. Was pondering that. It's complicated by the factoring out of the "active judgement" concept. >Including a defendant found guilty. Well, if e can't get 2 support, >then eir conviction likely wouldn't have been overturned anyway. Final paragraph of "Criminal Cases" validates unsupported appeal by the defendant. "CAN" does not imply "CAN ONLY". >Here is why The Standing Court isn't broken: I'm mystified as to how you thought it might be broken. The statements that you list here are correct, but not directly related to each other. -zefram
