Kerim Aydin wrote: > The CotC CAN, without 2 objections, ratify the fact that a > particular case has been legally assigned a particular judgement > and set of arguments.
Judicial question, not case. Reference to the arguments is superfluous. > The judgement and arguments assigned must > come from a previously published attempt at judgement intended > to apply to the case, published by an entity that the CotC > previously assigned or attempted to assign to that case. Dubious. Invites litigation over the interpretation of "attempt". We often use conditional actions: are they attempts if the condition is false? Overall I think it's an unnecessary mechanism. We don't have much of a problem here, and your proposed solution wouldn't work anyway: a judgement does not directly affect the veracity of the statement it is on (R591). The appropriate response to conflicting judgements, including where the judgements are on their own validity, is a fresh CFJ to decide the issue de novo in an ontologically unequivocal manner. -zefram
