I think you misunderstand Agoran CFJs. The reasoning is more important than the ruling. The purpose to judge DISMISS is to indicate that the judgement doesn't answer any gamestate questions. Ideally, and in most such recent cases, the text of the judgement still provides guidance on what to do if the case becomes relevant in the future.
This is also much of how common law courts work. 'Precedent' refers to the reasoning employee by judges more than the specific judgements. On May 25, 2017 07:20, "CuddleBeam" <cuddleb...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Sorry, I'm still a trainee-Judge of a sort and I wasn't aware of that > tradition, so I'll Support that Motion to Reconsider and do a better job > and avoid committing that same error again in the future. > > As for removing myself, I believe I am extremely appropriate for certain > flavors of CFJ. I wish there was a way I could be assigned mostly those > specifically. > > More notably, that Ambiguity CFJ, which a lot of people didn't want to > deal with and play the DISMISS card on it to dodge the issue when there was > perfectly valid, (although quibble-worthy) way to deal with it properly. > Although I find myself to be in a minority to be motivated to deal with > such offbeat CFJs, which is why I believed myself to be a great addition to > the pool, because more CFJs could be dealt with and not DISMISSED whenever > it felt uncomfortable or deviant. >
