On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote: > On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 17:18 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: >> If you'd like you can insert "in the judges opinion" after "the >> correct choice", because that is what matters here. Judges have >> latitude to select what they believe to be the best option when faced >> with multiple equally-plausible interpretations of a rule. If this >> case is appealed and REMANDed I will issue the same judgment with the >> addition of those four words. > > It's a judge's job to determine what is true, not to make things true. > Incorrect judgements don't change anything (except in the rare case that > they swing R217); instead, they cause everyone to play on in an > incorrect gamestate, which can only be bad for the game.
I remember at least one past case where, given two *similarly plausible* interpretations of unclear wording, the judge picked the one that allowed the two rules to "not conflict" rather than the one that had "a conflict to be resolved by precedence." I remember that it was accepted that this was a generally good principle - perhaps e even stated that it should be a precedent. Unfortunately I can't remember anything of the case context whatsoever so can't look this up. Regardless, its not in and of itself an unreasonable standard. -G.
