CfJ 3890 puts it into nicer words ("Where there is no obvious way to solve
a given problem, judges are free to apply their own life experience
(...)"), but seems to line up with what I had to end up with, simply
applying my own personal opinion.But also, yes, I agree that it's not explicit; but I hope that my reasons for approaching judging in that way seems sensible. Maybe it could become customary if enough people tend to resort to justifying themselves in that way. I think that the opinion of the consensus at the time, even if it doesn't align with my personal opinion, is a better basis for delivering judgement than just, well, my personal opinion. Especially when Rule 911 and Moots exist. On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:08 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/21/23 13:35, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > > I am personally convinced that this is a reasonable interest that a > number > > of people may have, as clearly shown by nix and G. Being myself familiar > > with board games and their customs being reasonably easy for people check > > for themselves, I permit this as evidence for the case as well for what > > would be "in the best interests of the game" and don't believe I require > > any further investigation into this. > > > > So, presented with these two conflicting views, unfortunately Rule 217 > > doesn't establish some kind of priority between the different > alternatives > > to the text of the rule. There is no priority between "custom" and "the > > best interests of the game", leaving me at an apparent impasse with the > > evidence presented. I cannot simply DIMISS this case either, given this > > apparent tie, because I believe that there is enough that indicates that > I > > nonetheless have to tiebreak and deliver a Judgement regardless as the > > Judge for this case. > > > > In this case, it would be easy to deliver Judgement to if there was an > > overwhelming majority that wanted this Judgement to be Judged in a > certain > > way, because of the mechanic in Rule 911 of Moots and Motions to > > Reconsider, which seem to reasonably imply that it's ultimately in the > > choice of popular Agoran opinion which Judgements end up being delivered > > and which not. However, with just 3 participating voices from the rest of > > players, it's difficult for me to make a reasonable assumption - plus, I > > personally believe that ais523 is correct, as it seems to be a more > > mechanistic and austere reading of that rule without needing to be > > augmented by fairly specific linguistic presumptions, leaving it at a 2 v > > 2. I recognize that those are very reasonable presumptions to have, but I > > don't see them as being sufficiently linguistically dominant; nor do I > see > > what seems to be a last-minute change in interpretation to be in the > "best > > interests of the game" either, even if the new interpretation would be > > itself in the "best interests of the game". If it was sufficiently > > announced, sure. But I don't feel like it's fair to blindside a player > like > > that. > > > > So, > > > > Unable to reach a conclusion by study of Rule 217, (appeal to game > custom / > > best interests of the game) > > Unable to reach a conclusion by study of Rule 911, (appeal to the opinion > > of the majority) > > And nonetheless believe that it is my duty deliver judgement regardless, > > > > I Judge TRUE, forced to play my last card and merely appeal to my > personal > > opinion. > > > The current guidance on this is CFJ 3890 > (https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3890). > > Also, judges generally don't explicitly appeal to what the majority > wants for matters of law (though that would be reasonable for things > like communication standards which are more squishy), and Rule 911 does > not direct judges to. Rule 217 is the primary authority on ruleset > interpretation. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > >
