Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, comex wrote: >> It is reasonable to expect a small modicum of effort by the judge, >> such as reading messages sent to the discussion forum on the same day. > > You have to understand: when I joined this game (you can see this when > you look back at the archives) Callers tended to put a lot of effort into > their cases; suggesting that the onus was on them to prove their case. > I remember, when DISMISS was an option, it was an option that Judge Kelly > (a lawyer in actual training and fact) would use frequently: "go do your > homework and present your case". I also think of the archives; I want > to be able to look at a case a year from now and understand what was > going on. > > I miss that style, and fight for it when I can. I apologize if this > offends you! > > Gratuitous arguments for the appeal: > In this case, from the Caller's Evidence, there's no record of what > happened, no reference to the event that may have made Myndzi a > player, and no reference for the judge to look it up. Only an obscure > reply to a quote that was itself truncated. Subsequent discussion in > the fora aside, at least the barest reference to the original events > should have been provided by the caller. In such a situation, a > judge is within eir rights to dismiss it undetermined. > > -G.
I heartily agree. Perhaps this should be made clear again in the rules? Changing "the information available to the judge" to "the information made available to the judge as arguments and evidence" might work, but that also might be too strict, enabling judges to refuse to do any research ever, and judging only on the basis of the information presented rather than considering (say) recent precedent or the rules. Alex Smith wrote: > What do we do if something important for the game is genuinely > UNDETERMINED, and will continue generating more and more undetermined > gamestate as time goes on? Um, ratify? > The problem on putting the onus on the CFJ caller, here, is that e may > not be the best person to know the information. E should then present the information e does know to the best of eir ability, try to determine where the uncertainty lies, and include with eir arguments as specific as possible a public request for more information from the relevant persons. > If the caller responds, > effectively, "go on, then, continue playing with unknown gamestate", > or worse, doesn't call the CFJ in the first place, then that puts the > Registrar in a very difficult position; e can report Myndzi's > playership as disputed Or e can call the CFJ emself.
