On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 5:26 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 6/23/23 20:16, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote: > > I motion to reconsider 4044, but I still find it to be TRUE, because > > continuity is implied, regardless of exactly "how" it works. > > > > This is a travesty. It is abdicating the responsibility of a judge, and > it is not actually resolving any controversy. It is a fundamental > failure of the CFJ system to fulfill its purpose of building consensus. > > If this judge won't do eir job, we should find one who will. > > I intend, with 2 support, to enter the above judgement into Moot. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > I'd be glad to have someone else judge it: my personal feelings are pretty agitated by this. I'm really feeling that the continuity of Rice Plans and eir signatures is clear from the context and holistic purpose and meaning of the rule in question, and to question the efficacy of previous signatures is a waste of a judge's time and effort, and it doesn't feel like good faith either. But consensus is the point, so I suppose that it should go to someone else. -- 4ˢᵗ Deputy Herald and Deputy Prime Minister Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
