On Mon, 20 Dec 2010, Sean Hunt wrote: > On 10-12-20 02:58 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Judgement: > > > > I find that marking a message as "the Justiciar's Opinion" as required > > for the rule overrides and replaces any previous Justiciar's Opinion > > on the case, provided the previous opinion wasn't already used to > > assign the judgement. This natural replacing of "the" opinion functions > > in the same natural way as consent (if you cease to consent, you withdraw > > previous consent rather than existing in both states), or support > > and objections (not necessarily in terms of the official dependent > > mechanism, but in the natural sense of withdrawing support/objections). > > > > TRUE. > > > > I award myself a three capacitors. > > I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgment. There is no text in the > wording of the rule to support this interpretation - either there can be more > than one or (as Murphy suggested but I disagree with) multiple opinions cause > the whole thing to fail. Nowhere does it reference a most recent opinion and I > can't find any reason to read such a notion into the rule.
Well, yeah, except I addressed that explicitly. In common language, an "opinion" is like consent, objections, etc. and there is no reason it can't be changed as long as publishing a new one isn't forbidden. Also, roughly (though I didn't add this), it's how legal systems generally work. Remember the concept of using "legal" definitions, not just mathematical ones? -G.
