Zefram wrote: >> 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.
Given that an action is (1) required and (2) not explicitly prohibited, when would you consider it appropriate for that action to not be implicitly allowed? This is in the same ballpark as "if the rules require or allow X but don't otherwise provide a mechanism, then X may be done by announcement", which I believe has also been suggested. >>> 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. And this new judicial terminology is, what, e.g. "assigns a judgement to a judicial question when obliged to and within the time limit specified by the rules", instead of "submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period"? >> 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". Ah, I missed that previously, thank you. >> 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. Currently, The Standing Court explicitly states that non-standing players are disqualified from being Trial Judges. The proto deals with supine players in one way and sitting players in another, then another rule specifies how this affects appeal cases. (I do like how you incorporated the "supine players shouldn't be assigned to appeal cases" idea.)
