On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 17:59, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
<agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I mean, didn’t we just do that, without any explicit rule at all? All we need
> is an informal policy that we go with the officer’s interpretation unless a
> CfJ decides otherwise.
>
> Alternatively, here’s a lightweight attempt to implement memoranda, either as
> an alternative to the above informal mechanism or because it becomes a
> dispute: I create the proposal {
> Title: Calls for Memoranda
> AI: 2
> Co-authors: Aris, G
>
> Amend rule 991 by appending “All other things being equal, the Arbitor SHOULD
> assign Calls for Judgement to the officer most concerned with its content.”
> after the sentence "The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all
> interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.”
> }
>
> Maybe if we wanted to get fancy, we could implement some way for the officer
> to assign themselves, so they could note their interpretation in the CfJ log
> simply by calling and resolving the CfJ in the same message.
>
> Gaelan
I strongly oppose this. In my view, inquiry cases should generally
*not* be the officer making the initial interpretation, at least not
preferentially. Inquiry cases are effectively the fallback appeal
mechanism, and should remain a balanced system. I would rather see a
separate path for administrative interpretations.
-Alexis
