comex wrote: >[[Switchifies status, thereby removing the annoying evaluated clauses.
Makes a pig's ear of it. In the current system, a question being suspended is definitively mutually exclusive with it having a judgement or being open. You've separated one status item into two, allowing combined states that aren't meant to exist, which screws up lots of the logic. For example, under your proposed rule an appealed sentence still takes effect, because the judgement is still there. Similarly, resolution of an appeal doesn't unsuspend the judicial question. >Takes advantage of the fact that specifying a method implies CAN to add >brevity.]] Bad style for using MMI, and a bad idea generally. I wrote the judicial rules with CAN conditions deliberately distinct from SHALL conditions, to avoid uncertainty. > The CotC's Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which > is a list of past CFJs. The Stare Decisis document was never really useful. The concept wasn't thought through properly: it was a rush job to satisfy an objection that was raised when we introduced the principle of stare decisis. The document's purpose is better served by annotations in the ruleset, which due to my research now comprehensively cover the CFJs of which we have accessible records. -zefram
