How about we have a non-binding Agoran decision on this CFJ? To gauge the will of the populace.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 2:30 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > Doesn't judging a CFJ based on what we plan to do after it kind of go > against the idea of "resolve it as if at the time it was created"? > > Also, is it wise to judge CFJs based on political expediency? I do > realize that people just continually voting to overturn judgments isn't > helpful for anyone, but I haven't been broken of my idealism yet. > > Jason Cobb > > On 6/20/19 11:41 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > I’m for this solution. Moots are kinda lousy at consensus building, due > to > > the limited number of voting options. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 8:39 PM Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> why don't we just judge this cfj irrelevant because no consequences can > be > >> imposed for any crimes anyway, and nobody would sign such a stupid > contract > >> as the one at issue here, and then moot the issue by passing a fix > proposal > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 1:34 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> Why would this go to moot when we could just endlessly group-file > >>> motions to reconsider? > >>> > >>> Jason Cobb > >>> > >>> On 6/20/19 11:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >>>> I feel like we're hitting a binary decision point with a split group > of > >>>> players so I'm guessing this is Moot-bound regardless (FWIW, I'm with > >>>> R. Lee on this one so far). > >>>> > >>>> On 6/20/2019 7:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > >>>>> And to think this all could have been avoided if people had just kept > >>>>> my original judgement and take the fall for interpreting the rules so > >>>>> as to proscribe unregulated actions as they clearly do. > >>>>> > >>>>> On 6/20/19 8:38 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > >>>>>> I think to consider a forbidden interpretation and then explicitly > >>>>>> reject it probably would not run afoul of this SHALL NOT. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Jason Cobb > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 6/20/19 7:56 PM, omd wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the > >>>>>>>> facts of the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that > >>>>>>>> breathing is prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say > >>>>>>>> that it says what it says. That is a paradox that would logically > >>>>>>>> apply to any CFJ of the same formal structure. The undecidability > >>>>>>>> of the CFJ therefore inheres in the formal structure of the rules, > >>>>>>>> as exploited by an ingenious contact, and is properly considered a > >>>>>>>> logical undecidability. > >>>>>>> FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically > >>>>>>> undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft > >>>>>>> would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is > >>>>>>> still based on the forbidden interpretation. > >> > >> -- > >> From R. Lee > >> > -- >From R. Lee
