On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, comex wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Kerim Aydin<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> As a point, self-interest aside, I think its bad if expressing opinions in >> discussion disqualifies one to judge. That's a little chilling... are you >> saying it's better to favor a case and stay quiet rather than have a >> discussion about it? > > I don't really know. Favoring is a useful addon, I think, to > relatively uncontroversial cases, but for really controversial ones it > changes the system dramatically. Often a case previously would be > assigned to an uninvolved player, who would be "above the debate", > forming eir own opinion only after everyone else has had their say. > Now it will almost always be someone who's already formed an opinion > at the start of the case, and it's always hard to change one's mind.
FWIW, I favored it because it's an interesting case (favoring aside I thought about raising the II) and I wrote the last round of arguments after favoring. That's the main reason I was annoyed... it would be fun to think through. A case where I'm just "against it and think I'm right" I'm happy to stick with submitting something gratuitous instead of favoring. There's two types of controversy, too: controversy because it does something powerful, and controversy because the problem itself is complex and worth mooting and discussion. Favoring the latter type of case is fine (you want someone with the wherewithal to think it through - someone "above it all" will often need a summary of the discussions and finer points raised to avoid an appeal) but favoring just due to the former reason not so much (that's when you want someone above it all). This case has both so it's easy to confound the two. -G.
