On 7/30/2020 2:02 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > > >> On Jul 30, 2020, at 12:58 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official >> <agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> >> Holding with that precedent, "interested in judging" is not regulated due >> to having a recordkeepor, and can be determined by a common-sense >> application of the common defininition of the term. E.g. by initially >> expressing interest to the Arbitor, and being removed either by their own >> professed lack of interest, or if their failure to judge without >> explanation shows that they lack interest. > > While I think this is the “correct” ruling—in that it’s consistent with > precedent, and the same ruling I would have made if I knew about that CFJ—it > also seems “wrong” in that it’s inconsistent with legislative intent behind > regulated actions rules. It’d probably be a good idea to propose a rephrasing > of the regulated actions rules, possibly with some sort of “explicitly > described as unregulated” exception so we can keep the informal bench. > > Gaelan >
Yah I agree. When doing the research on the first cfj I had no idea which side I'd end up on and thought it was an unintuitive use of the term that could use a fix, but didn't get around to it. One question: is there anything that we actually "recordkeep" (in the broad sense) that we want to be regulated, but we don't also "limit, allow, enable, or permit" or "describe the circumstances under which it would succeed or fail"? In other words, do we actually lose any protections if we delete the recordkeepor clause? -G.
