On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, comex wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Kerim Aydin<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> Oh but wait, that means the Caller has to expend some effort instead >> of the CotC, a full appeals court, and the judges? How un-Agoran! > > It is reasonable to expect a small modicum of effort by the judge, > such as reading messages sent to the discussion forum on the same day.
You have to understand: when I joined this game (you can see this when you look back at the archives) Callers tended to put a lot of effort into their cases; suggesting that the onus was on them to prove their case. I remember, when DISMISS was an option, it was an option that Judge Kelly (a lawyer in actual training and fact) would use frequently: "go do your homework and present your case". I also think of the archives; I want to be able to look at a case a year from now and understand what was going on. I miss that style, and fight for it when I can. I apologize if this offends you! Gratuitous arguments for the appeal: In this case, from the Caller's Evidence, there's no record of what happened, no reference to the event that may have made Myndzi a player, and no reference for the judge to look it up. Only an obscure reply to a quote that was itself truncated. Subsequent discussion in the fora aside, at least the barest reference to the original events should have been provided by the caller. In such a situation, a judge is within eir rights to dismiss it undetermined. -G.
