> I think the best direction in this regard would be to allow CFJs that > are not relevant to Agora directly, with some payment to compensate > the judge for their time. "Agora as a ruleset interpretation service", > if you like. So Agora would act entirely in a fact-finding role, not in > any sort of enforcement role. (The person who commissioned Agora to > come to a judgement could then do what they wanted with the resulting > judgement and its reasoning.)
I suspect it's already possible to use Agora's CFJ system for questions not directly relevant to Agora, by entangling the statement with a relevant question. CFJ: Falsifian owns at least one blot if and only if English Wikipedia has an article titled "Sponge". Arguments: Wikipedia has an article titled "Sponge", so this comes down to whether Falsifian owns at least one blot. Blots affect voting power, so this CFJ is not IRRELEVANT. According to the last two Referee reports (the second-last has self-ratified), Falsifian owns no blots. E has not gained any since. So FALSE. Evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge (just now archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20200524164258/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge ) >From the latest referee report: > Blots Active player > ----- ------------- > 1 G. > 2 Gaelan > 2 nch > 2 omd > 2 R. Lee > 2 twg > > Blots Zombie > ----- ------ > > No fugitives exist. >From the 2019-05-17 referee report: > Blots Active player > ----- ------------- > 1 G. > 2 Gaelan > 1 Murphy > 2 nch > 2 omd > 2 twg > > Blots Zombie > ----- ------ > > No fugitives exist. - Falsifian
