On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 3:07 PM James Cook via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Why the third requirement? What if someone notices a problem with a > judgement 10 days after it's assigned, and there was no motion to > reconsider?
The idea is a fixed progression: first you remand via a motion to give the judge a chance to address it, and only then do go to the remit option. This is a compromise - making remit faster/simpler but not allowing a "remit" without giving the judge a chance to reconsider. > I had been under the impression that the current case of CFJ 3831 is > sort of like that, since I don't remember people disagreeing with the > judgement until somewhat later. Yes the main issue was there wasn't a peep of complaint for the first 2 weeks (at least that I saw). There should be a cutoff time but I'm open to the correct length for that. (Right now the main reason not to make it longer is the 7-day waiting period for paradox, making it longer could lead to "get the win, then appeal the judgement" type of scams). > Are cases ever re-opened by proposal, when other methods are expired > or exhausted? I've never seen that (though there's nothing stopping it) - when it gets to a legislative solution people have just proposed the answer they wanted (e.g. "ratify that X happened and change the rule so it's not confusing any more").
