TTttPF. > On Jun 30, 2017, at 12:11 AM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: > > >> On Jun 29, 2017, at 12:57 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 09:47 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: >>> You're misconstruing what e said. E said that eir assignments _did_ >>> give everyone a "reasonably equal" opportunity to judge. I any case, >>> I object to the finger pointing (not that objecting does anything). I >>> further support the intent to enter the judgment into Moot, and do >>> so. >> >> Aris + Cuddlebeam + Publius Scribonius Scholasticus = 3, that's enough. >> I was going to say "with all these new players, people have forgotten >> that Moots are broken", but it turns out that we fixed them at some >> point, so perhaps this will actually work. >> >> I initiate the Agoran Decision to determine public confidence in the >> judgement of CFJ 3534. >> >> For this decision, the vote collector is the Arbitor, and the valid >> options are AFFIRM, REMAND, and REMIT (PRESENT is also a valid vote). >> Quorum for this decision is 6. > > I vote REMAND. > > Relying on purely technical artefacts, such as line wrapping, quirks of > specific character encodings, and the byte order of the underlying RFC 2822 > message, to evaluate a text written in a human language is a deeply worrying > precedent to set. Further, CFJ 1460 contains some guidance > >> I therefore hold that an Agoran player need not regard, nor be required >> to act upon, a message written in a language e does not understand, >> whether or not it is sent to a public forum. > > that does not appear to have been applied, nor overturned. > > -o > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
