Roger Hicks wrote: > I too would like to see a judgment, but I'll stop short of taking > action that would permit what I believe to be a false judgment (even > if it costs me rests). Since there are two seemingly valid > interpretations, why not choose the one which is in the best interests > of Agora rather than the one that would cause massive gamestate > recalculation?
There are three possible outcomes -- true judgement, false judgement, or no judgement -- of which you were personally able, through your actions, to bring about two -- false judgement or no judgement. Before a majority of your copanelists opined, holding out (or opining AFFIRM/error) would have been entirely reasonable, because "true judgement" was at that time still a viable option. Once that possibility was eliminated, however, you should have chosen the better of the two remaining. You seem to see "stop[ping] short of taking action" as a kind of abstention, a neutral default action to fall back on when there are no good options available. I disagree with this philosophy. No decision is a decision, and it has real consequences. It should be treated as a fully-fledged choice on the same level as the choices of action. There is no default.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
