On Mon, 4 May 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote: >> =================== CFJ 2488 (Interest Index = 2) ==================== >> >> The prohibition on excessive Notices of Violation in rule 2230 >> is ineffective due to rule 101 >> >> ======================================================================== > > We had this argument back when excess CFJs were first introduced, > regarding 101(ii), the right to CFJ. I believe the consensus on the DF > was that it could take precedence in the right circumstances (ie, there > were >N genuine controversies that couldn't wait until next week), but > that the circumstances in which there was a genuine conflict would very > seldom come up.
Actually, I don't see a "prohibition against excess" anyway. I see a "with N Support or by announcement" which creates a CAN mechanism that varies depending on the previous number. I'm not sure that the support mechanism convolutions link up to a definition of "excessive". I mean, I think excessive is ">five per week" regardless of how much support you've got :). -Goethe
