On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote: > this certainly is unambiguous at the time it is resolved, > even though I don't know who the first person to judge a CFJ on July 18 > is, and the action itself hasn't changed between the time it was > initiated and the time it was resolved.
The whole point of why it doesn't work is that it is ambiguous at the time of the announcement of intent, and R1728 says that the announcement of intent must be unambiguous. The rules are silent on whether sets with non-precise but definable-from-future-conditions membership at the time of intent qualifies as ambiguous membership at the time of intent. So precedent has now been set, as judges are permitted to do. To change this, the next step would be legislative. As an parallel, conditional votes were required to be legislated before they were permissible, this was done by explicitly defining the "clearly identified" requirement in R683c to include determinable conditionals in 2127. -Goethe
