On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 3:43 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > 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?
Counter-proposal: change the clause to protect change to rule-defined state. That seems to me to make more sense and fix the present difficulty. -Aris
