It’d be interesting to hear the H. Arbitor’s opinion on this. IMO, officers
should use this mechanism iff it’s a substantially new interpretation, so that
we have a log of what we’ve decided about how new rules work, instead of having
to find the threads where we figured it out last time.
Gaelan
> On Feb 12, 2020, at 10:32 PM, James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 07:34, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>> I submit this proposal: {
>> Title: Calls with Memoranda
>> AI: 2
>> Co-authors: Aris, G, Alexis
>>
>> Create a new Power-2 rule titled “Administrative Opinions”: {
>> An officer may publish an Administrative Opinion for a judicial case,
>> specifying a valid judgement for that case. Officers SHOULD only assign
>> Administrative Opinions to cases with which eir office is primarily
>> concerned. The Arbitor SHOULD record Administrative Opinions along with case
>> judgements. An officer who has published an Administrative Opinion for an
>> unassigned case may, without objection, Administratively Close a case,
>> causing em to become the judge for the case and eir Administrative Opinion
>> to become the judgment for the case. The Arbitor SHOULD NOT assign a judge
>> to a case while proceedings to Administratively Close it are ongoing.
>> }
>> }
>>
>> [This is intended to be used in two ways:
>> 1) As a mechanism for officers to record uncontroversial rulings as they
>> come up: If someone does something weird, the officer can call the CFJ,
>> issue an Opinion, and move to Administratively Close in the same message. In
>> this case, this basically is a memorandum that gets recorded in the CFJ log.
>
> When something weird happens that relates to my office, I normally
> just say what I think happened without calling a CFJ unless someone
> disagrees. Is it better to call a CFJs even if there's no controversy?
>
> I wonder if the CFJ logs could get cluttered if people get too
> enthusiastic about this mechanism.
>
>> 2) As a mechanism to uncontroversially resolve CFJs initiated by someone
>> else.
>
> I like the way your proposal accomplishes this.
>
> - Falsifian
