comex wrote: > Each judicial question is either inapplicable (default) > or applicable, as defined by the rules.
Losing a clarifying clause that I think is useful. > Status is a judicial > question switch, tracked by the CotC, with values of open > (default), suspended, or judged. Losing the bit about having a judgement. "Judged" status here should actually be many possible statuses, one per possible judgement. > When a judicial case has an applicable open judicial question, > it requires a judge, who SHALL as soon as possible assign a This has a logic leap, assuming that "requires a judge" means that it has a judge. These are two very different things. You also drop the explicit CAN, making it less clear what is possible regarding assigning judgement. Possibility and obligation are mostly orthogonal concepts. > Whenever a judicial case has a judicial question that has > remained applicable and open, while the same judge has been > assigned to the case, continuously for the past week, the CotC > SHALL within two weeks recuse that judge with cause by > announcement. Mixing possibility and obligation again. -zefram
