On 5/29/08, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But the CFJ isn't over *appropriate* judgements, it's over assigning a > judgement at all.
Umm, that's just a wording thing. What I was attempting to try em for is failing to augment the ambiguity in the Rules with respect to whether equations can be contests with game custom, common sense, past judgements, and/or consideration of the best interests of the game, when e submitted that judgement. In other words, for making a woefully inadequate judgement, CFJ 1651-style. Although we usually don't initiate criminal cases against judges for having bad arguments (and Goethe sure made a stink about this one) it was hardly eir duty to fail to address serious issues in the case at hand, especially when that is against the best interests of the game (i.e. allowing valid scams). Since Goethe claims in eir arguments for the defense that e was not just trying to bust the scam (and, for that matter, since the scam turned out to be invalid), I would support a judgement of INNOCENT, EXCUSED, or DISCHARGED. Because anyone could have made the scam contest cease to be a contest without 3 objections (and I don't think there would have been 3 bojections, although surely that clause should be with 3 support, to be equivalent to the contest creation clause) it actually infuriated me when Goethe made what seemed to me a judgement designed for the sole and only purpose of busting the scam at all costs. So I initiated a criminal case lest e get away with it. The judgement itself was strictly appropriate (although I ruled that ais523's original judgement was in fact appropriate, and nobody is appealing, there was certainly serious doubt at the time) and the chances of a "please treat Agora right good forever" case being judged GUILTY are miniscule, so I decided on Rule 217 as one rule Goethe might have breached in eir judgement. Although I apologize for jumping to conclusions, I still strongly disagree with eir decision to reassign CFJ 1932.
