On Thursday 13 September 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Losing a clarifying clause that I think is useful.
Yes, the main purpose of the proto is to remove unnecessary clauses. The
only rules with the "persistent status" terminology are 2158 and 1868 and
I don't think they need them.
> This has a logic leap, assuming that "requires a judge" means that it
> has a judge. These are two very different things.
Good point, but it's not much different than the existing
When a judicial case has an applicable open judicial question,
it requires a judge, and its judge CAN assign a valid judgement
to that question by announcement.
> You also drop the explicit CAN, making it less clear what is possible
> regarding assigning judgement. Possibility and obligation are mostly
> orthogonal concepts.
Yes, but Rule 2161 sets a clear precedent that defining a method (e.g. "by
announcement") implies CAN.
> Losing the bit about having a judgement. "Judged" status here should
> actually be many possible statuses, one per possible judgement.
Probably a good idea. As far as I can tell, however, this would only
affect the CotC's report, nothing else.
