============================== CFJ 2629 ==============================
My judicial rank is 42.
Called by scshunt: 07 Jul 2009 01:22:41 GMT
Assigned to woggle: 10 Jul 2009 05:58:19 GMT
Judged FALSE by woggle: 10 Jul 2009 08:05:52 GMT
I flip my judicial rank to 4. There is a CFJ with II 4, therefore 4 is a
possible interest index.
I flip my judicial rank to 42. If Rule 2225 can still increase the II of
a case beyond 3 after Murphy's proposal re definitions was adopted, then
this is a theoretically possible value of II, therefore I should be able
to select it as my judicial rank.
Alternatively, the definition of judicial rank only considers the
definition of II in Rule 2153, so my rank remains at 3.
Judge woggle's Arguments:
I judge both of these FALSE. Though we may decide to make exceptions to
the II range when ordinary tracked IIs would come to have an
"impossible" II value, judicial rank is defined as a switch for which no
such discretion exists; the rules define the procedure for us:
Rule 2162/1 (Power=2)
b) One or more possible values for instances of that switch,
exactly one of which is designated as the default. No other
values are possible for instances of that switch.
If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a
possible value, it comes to have its default value.
R2226's "with the same range and default as interest indices" is clearly
a reference to R2153's definition, meaning that the possible values for
the judicial rank switch are 0, 1, 2, and 3 and the default value is 1.
Thus, plainly if coppro's judicial rank would have become 4 or 42 by the
mechanism of R2226, it instead became 1 per R2162.