On Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: >> Waitaminute. Isn't there an existing precedent to the tune that "if a >> priority of an office is undefined, we can use the natural sense of high >> and low priority to define it" and further that by custom, any weekly >> office was high priority? I don't see anything in the ruleset that >> prevents a judge/precedent from deciding that an office is high or low >> priority based on custom. Or is this just another thing that was >> "decided" without a CFJ or question? -G. > > Quite possibly. However, I don't know what the definition of high- or > low- priority would be, exactly, and if someone provided a > classification, I'd gladly use that.
Sorry to quote my own precedent, but CFJ 2359 actually has a quite detailed logic on classification. It still works, as the new card rule still implicitly ties "high" at least one weekly-level duty and "low" to at least one monthly- level duty, so the rules still answer steps (b) and (e) in the precedent. -G.
