Zefram wrote:
I hereby recuse BobTHJ from CFJ 1651. I hereby assign Murphy as judge
of CFJ 1651.
Statement: if a R107 notice initiating an Agoran decision does not contain
an explicit list of the eligible voters, and there is later a
dispute (evidenced by submission of a CFJ) over which voters
were eligible at that time, then the notice's description of
the class of eligible voters was necessarily insufficient to
enable public agreement on which persons are eligible
Proto-judgement:
Rule 107/3 was in effect at the time this CFJ was called, so 107/4's
one-week cutoff for challenges does not apply.
The statement is straightforwardly true. For instance, if a notice
says that the eligible voters are the active players, and there is
later a dispute over whether a player was active (and thus is eligible)
at that time, then the notice's description is insufficient to enable
public agreement on whether that player is eligible. I therefore
(proto-)judge TRUE.
Even Rule 107's claim that "an explicit list ... is always sufficient
for this purpose" may be counter to fact, if there is a dispute over
whether one of the explicitly-listed persons was eligible. This clause
should probably be reworded along the lines of "is considered to satisfy
this requirement".
