On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > 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? >
Keep. Part of the basis for my decision was that this is almost always what is really intended, and we should keep that. I would also add a SHOULD against using it though. The ambiguity is annoying, and I'd prefer not to have a bunch of people start using the crutch in their proposals. -Aris
