I wrote: > Zefram wrote: > >> I note that nowhere in this case file do you state what the current >> judgement actually is. This seems like a serious failing, in a document >> that is meant to be referred to for historical purposes. For that matter, >> your case file for CFJ 1897a doesn't formally specify the "to TRUE" >> part of the judgement, leaving it to be extracted from the panellists' >> arguments. > > I'll see about adding a column to the database to record this. The > CFJs for which it would need to be back-populated are 1684, 1711, 1740, > 1745, 1805, 1812, 1846, 1857-58, and 1896-97.
Rather than add a column, I just created some new values for the existing 'decision' column and poked them into the history. Feel free to proofread the following: 1684 OVERRULE/TRUE 1711 OVERRULE/FALSE 1740 OVERRULE/APOLOGY 1745 OVERRULE/IRRELEVANT 1805 OVERRULE/FALSE 1812 OVERRULE/EXCUSED 1846 OVERRULE/TRUE 1857 OVERRULE/GUILTY 1858 OVERRULE/GUILTY 1896 OVERRULE/TRUE 1897 OVERRULE/TRUE
