Zefram wrote:
I hereby assign the judicial panel of comex, Murphy, and root as judge of CFJ 1863a.
I intend to cause the panel to judge REMAND. Arguments: In BobTHJ's judgement of CFJ 1860, e explicitly cites the last paragraph of Rule 2159, and accurately discusses its direct interpretation (though e missed some indirect possibilities, e.g. that Steve Wallace represents a nomic). In eir gratuituous arguments for CFJ 1863, e mentions it again. E is clearly not unaware of it. However, in both cases, e goes on to argue that this paragraph (which sets down the letter of the law) is "largely irrelevant" in the face of the first paragraph of the same rule (which sets down the conceptual purpose of protective decrees). This suggests the belief that intent can take precedence over explicit statement, a stance that Agora has long since rejected. I'm not sure whether BobTHJ was being disingenuous, or simply confused due to the high volume of recent activity in Agora and/or other nomics in which e plays. EXCUSED on 1863 is inappropriate in the first case, appropriate in the second [*]. I recommend that H. Judge Goethe consider this question when preparing eir second judgement. [*] UNAWARE may also be appropriate in the second case. CFJ 1804 suggests EXCUSED for good-faith inappropriate judgements, but that judgement was delivered before UNAWARE was adopted, and I believe its arguments now implicitly suggest UNAWARE as being equally appropriate in such cases.
