[I'm actually the top of the list right now, but this also falls under the "responsible for the administration of justice in a manner that is fair for emself" clause of R991].
The below CFJ is 3873. I assign it to G. I deliver the following Judgement in the case: First, note that this doesn't affect judicial assignments. By Rule 991, the Arbitor CAN assign to any "eligible" judges (which are defined in that rule and unrelated to "interest"). So if there are no interested judges, the SHALL requirement for judicial assignments is trivially satisfied. In fact, it's satisfied if the Arbitor specifically refuses to assign to any interested judges (0 for everyone is equal). Second, the judgement CFJ 3740 included an extensive history and analysis of the term "recordkeepor" and came to the following conclusion: > "Recordkeepor" in R2125 refers strictly to instances where the term is > used in the rules, and any records cascading from that explicit use. > Currently, this only applies to the R2166 definition cited by the > caller, but also the "Ribbons" that cascades recordkeeping to Ribbon > switches in general (duplicating the "tracked by" lanugage for > switches in R2162). (https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3740) 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. Jason expressed interest in judging when e was an eligible judge, and has produced regular and timely judgements including on eir most recent assignment (judgement delivered 21-July), so e was clearly interested in judging at the time of this CFJ. I judge FALSE. G. On 7/30/2020 11:46 AM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote: > I CFJ: { Jason is not an interested judge. } > > EVIDENCE > > Proposal 7899 (Oct 2017) appended the following to rule 991 (calls for > judgement): > > { > The Arbitor's weekly report includes a summary of recent > judicial case activity, including open and recently-judged > cases, recent judicial assignments, and a list of players > interested in judging. > } > > That text is still there, unchanged, in the current 991/33. > > Rule 2125/12 reads (in part): > { > An action is regulated by a body of law if […] (3) it would, as part of its > effect, modify information for which some person bound by that body of law is > required, by that body of law, to be a recordkeepor. > > If a body of law regulates an action, then to the extent that doing so is > within its scope, that body of law prevents the action from being performed > except as described within it, including by limiting the methods to perform > that action to those specified within it. […] > } > > ARGUMENTS > > “Recordkeepor” is defined by the rules only in the context of assets, but it > seems fairly obvious to parse this as “information… for which some person > bound by that body of law is required to include in eir report.” Therefore, > becoming interested in judging is a regulated action. Therefore, one can only > become an interested judge except as described by the rules, which provide no > mechanism to do so. Jason registered in Jun 2019, after Oct 2017 when > interested judgeship became a regulated action. Therefore, there is no way ey > could have become a interested judge. > > Gaelan > Gratuitous:
