Actually, I was asked by ais523 to add to a CfJ a clarification on
something, a 'sub-Judgement' of a sort.
Would've it been possible for me to, for example, Judge TRUE, but also add
a sub-Judgement that from here on, we should play according to the
interpretation that would make it FALSE (that is, that you can only anoint
once)? Like that, we would avoid the blindside issue, but also end up with
the newer interpretation established.
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:51 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:44 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but wouldn't certain CfJs be likely to enter into Moot Tennis if we
> > don't take the opinion of the majority as a tiebreaker as Judges? We can
> > keep going back and forth with Moots, because 2+N Support seems fairly
> easy
> > to pull off.
> >
> > How is the Moot Tennis supposed to end?
>
> If a Moot ends up being really close/split, the best thing is to fix
> it by voting on legislation (a proposal) that clarifies it absolutely
> one way or the other. Including possibly by-proposal saying that
> ais523 wins even if the "clarification" goes in the opposite way
> overall. Of course, if the clarification has to be made in an power
> 2+ rule, you could get a situation whether neither side can pass a
> clarification in their direction. So far, we've managed to eke out a
> compromise in the rare rare times that has happened.
>
> -G.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:32 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On 5/22/23 15:25, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > If judges always or often judge based on what the majority wants, a lot
> > > of the point of a judiciary separate from the proposal system is
> > > diminished. If a judge fully and truly believes the outcome of a case
> is
> > > the opposite of what the majority wants (after hearing all the
> > > arguments), then, in my view, they should judge that way. If they can
> > > make a convincing argument then all is well, and if they can't then the
> > > majority has motions and moots to deal with it.
> > >
> > > If the majority is wrong, let them be wrong, but make them work for it.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Janet Cobb
> > >
> > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
> > >
> > >
>
