On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Possibly big question: if a player fails to do something that the rules
> authorize em (with a SHALL) to do within a time limit, is e permitted
> to do it late, or does eir authorization expire?
>
> Agoran custom is that the authorization continues, but Rules don't say
> (or did I miss them). Maybe R2160 allows an Officer to "deputize for
> emself" though that would require an announcement of intent.
>
> Reason: I believe that we came to think (via CFJ, or just discussion?)
> if R2019 "in a timely fashion SHALL" expires before the beginning of a
> month, the Speaker loses the ability to assign prerogatives (and thus
> none are assigned nor can be assigned for August, except via Deputisation).
> However, this interpretation would invalidate many late actions where a
> player must do something ASAP.
CFJ 1863 is highly relevant here. For reference, BobTHJ was under
trial for "failing to assign an appropriate judgement, by means of
assigning an inappropriate judgement instead." (I love that wording.)
Presently, judges are prohibited from assigning inappropriate
judgements, but at the time judges were merely obligated to assign an
appropriate judgement ASAP.
When a judge is recused (say, e recuses emself before the time limit),
the obligation to assign an appropriate judgement is customarily
waived. But the precedent of that CFJ is that when a judge assigns an
inappropriate judgement, the obligation to assign an appropriate
judgement is immediately violated (even if, in fact, the judge might
make an appropriate judgement later). I don't think there is or was
any legislation that would differentiate the two situations where a
judge becomes unable to assign a judgement, in terms of the effect on
the obligation-- there is only game custom.
As another, at least for assigning judgements, the SHALL was so
closely tied to the CAN that when the CAN expires, so does the SHALL
(as either satisfied, violated, or waived). What is to say that the
opposite does not happen: when a SHALL is violated, the CAN expires?
Note that at the time, the language was:
When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case
has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid
judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL assign an appropriate
judgement to it as soon as possible.
The CAN was not explicitly tied to the time limit, and it is a similar
to the implicit "CAN x by announcement, and SHALL x as soon as
possible" we read from "SHALL x by announcement as soon as possible".
