On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > I don't have the time right now to get a better judgment out. I > thought I was basically just going with the first of you three > reasonable interpretations? Anyhow, I'm going to make this the > judgment. If the Agoran public is unhappy, they can REMAND or REMIT > it, otherwise the judgment will stand. I agree with you that this is > imperfect, it just seems to preserve rule intent better than the > alternatives. As I do say in the judgment, unguarded CANs are bad > form, so hopefully people will avoid using them.
No sweat, I appreciate the time you took to reconsider in the first place. I won't lead the Moot, if other people aren't that bothered by it. If we actually clarified this legislative (made it painfully explicit), do you think we should keep the implication or squish it?
