============================== CFJ 3098 ==============================
CFJ 3072a has been judged.
Called by woggle: 17 Aug 2011 21:54:47 GMT
Assigned to omd: 10 Sep 2011 19:05:38 GMT
Judged FALSE by omd: 11 Sep 2011 04:31:09 GMT
OVERRULE/NOT GUILTY doesn't specify prejudice and therefore
is not a valid judgment in this case. Therefore they are not "such
published opinions" as required by R2341 to cause the panel to act:
As soon as possible after a judicial panel is assigned to a
case, each member of the panel SHALL publish an opinion
indicating a _valid judgement_ to assign to the case -- only the
_last such published opinion_ for each member is used to determine
Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
On 4 Sep 2010, Rule 911 was amended to legislate implicit prejudice
(APPEAL or REMAND = without, REMIT or OVERRULE = with).
On 16 May 2011, the relevant text was moved from Rule 911 to Rule 2341
with some modifications, omitting the text on implicit prejudice. Does
it persist as game custom?
Judge omd's Arguments:
We do implicitly accept shortcuts like "vote on a proposal" or "make a
proposal Democratic"*, where, as in this case, the literal message
parses syntactically but not semantically, but as far as I know, in
all those cases there is only one possible action the player could
have meant (which even a moron in a hurry would be able to figure
out), and there is little benefit in forcing em to make it explicit.
In this case, there are two-- e could have meant to judge with or
without prejudice-- and in general it's possible that e might have
forgotten to decide which one e wanted, so rejecting the message has
the advantage that e could go ahead and decide. Although game custom
strongly suggests e meant to include prejudice, I'm skeptical that
it's strong enough to remove the ambiguity. FALSE.
* much to my displeasure three years ago (has it really been that long?)